Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

An intriguing mathematical encoding/basis of some paradigm in super-artificial intelligence.

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#101  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 19, 2017 10:24 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
As I said before, the whole point of the redefinition is to update the concept so that empirically observed properties remain.
Now, the only type of universes creatable by intelligence, is simulations.
Can you attempt to understand this simple factum?


I understand the statement (just like I did the last 50 times you stated it), and I understand why it doesn't make your case. I also understand why you pretend to not grasp my objection, instead choosing to robotically repeat your assertions. Your words appear to indicate a bit of trolling, mediocre to poor quality at best.


I didn't detect any sensible/ empirically bound objection.
Anyway Let us continue this amidst the other thread.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#102  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 19, 2017 10:24 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
I read a summary. It doesn't add any meaning to anything you've said.


Close your books, surprise quiz -

1) What is a task?

A transformation.

2) What is knowledge?

African or European?

3) Why would one seek to express all fundamental scientific theories in terms of a dichotomy between possible and impossible physical transformations ?

Apparently QM doesn't explain why particular transformations are possible or not, and constructor theory claims to solve that. Still has fuck-all to do with the topic of the thread.


:sigh: Perhaps ProgrammingGodJordan will be kind enough to explain it to you. I don't want to step on his thread. :no:

Yeah, I'm sure he will :lol:
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10514
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#103  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 19, 2017 10:26 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
As I said before, the whole point of the redefinition is to update the concept so that empirically observed properties remain.
Now, the only type of universes creatable by intelligence, is simulations.
Can you attempt to understand this simple factum?


I understand the statement (just like I did the last 50 times you stated it), and I understand why it doesn't make your case. I also understand why you pretend to not grasp my objection, instead choosing to robotically repeat your assertions. Your words appear to indicate a bit of trolling, mediocre to poor quality at best.


I didn't detect any sensible/ empirically bound objection.

Better tune those detectors, then.

Anyway Let us continue this amidst the other thread.

What, you aren't going to report that post where you broke the FUA ?
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10514
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#104  Postby John Platko » Apr 19, 2017 10:27 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
John Platko wrote:

What part of you made up shit that England never wrote and implied that he did didn't you understand?


Laymen tend to prefer things spelled out.

I see that the paper may be a bit hard to comprehend, although Jeremy's work did express that life's meaning, is to attribute processes that optimize some paradigm.


The paper is self explanatory, Jeremey is an excellent writer. What is hard to comprehend is why you insist on misrepresenting his work. It serves no purpose.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 8647
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#105  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 19, 2017 10:31 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
No, I'm sure you have. Perhaps we can develop a John Platko phrase generator, misusing half-digested phrases from various theoretical physics papers and mashing them together into a pseudo-intellectual mess. Chopra would be proud.


It sure as hell would save a lot of time :nod: But I do better than that. I show my work.

Indeed, you parroting half digested information from various papers is shown just about every time you post :lol:

I've demonstrated practical (perhaps impractical?) use of that paper. In other words, I'm not just making shit up. :no: I've demonstrated how meaning defines the horizon of optimization. Which makes this thread very curious indeed. :scratch:

You've demonstrated jack, as usual. I know vacuous, pseudo-scientific gibberish makes your cheeks hot, but most folks don't find transparent trolling that curious at all.


I started using CT about here and demonstrated how what is possible and what is not possible bounds the optimization space and defines meaning. :nod:


I encountered constructor theory a few months ago.
Intriguing model.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#106  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 19, 2017 10:31 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.


Any math/scientific evidence for the claim above?

Image

You must not understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat it for you.

God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10514
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#107  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 19, 2017 10:33 pm

John Platko wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
John Platko wrote:

What part of you made up shit that England never wrote and implied that he did didn't you understand?


Laymen tend to prefer things spelled out.

I see that the paper may be a bit hard to comprehend, although Jeremy's work did express that life's meaning, is to attribute processes that optimize some paradigm.


The paper is self explanatory, Jeremey is an excellent writer. What is hard to comprehend is why you insist on misrepresenting his work. It serves no purpose.


You are still yet to explain how I have supposedly misrepresented his work.

Image

Jeremy's England work (page 920) describes that life is optimizing (and seeks to optimize) some range of thermodynamic properties. Can you attempt to understand that 'simple' factum?
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 19, 2017 10:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#108  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 19, 2017 10:33 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.


Any math/scientific evidence for the claim above?

You must not understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat it for you.

God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.



Take that nonsense/garbage elsewhere.
Reported post.
Reason, nonsense/irrelevant response.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#109  Postby John Platko » Apr 19, 2017 10:48 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

It sure as hell would save a lot of time :nod: But I do better than that. I show my work.

Indeed, you parroting half digested information from various papers is shown just about every time you post :lol:

I've demonstrated practical (perhaps impractical?) use of that paper. In other words, I'm not just making shit up. :no: I've demonstrated how meaning defines the horizon of optimization. Which makes this thread very curious indeed. :scratch:

You've demonstrated jack, as usual. I know vacuous, pseudo-scientific gibberish makes your cheeks hot, but most folks don't find transparent trolling that curious at all.


I started using CT about here and demonstrated how what is possible and what is not possible bounds the optimization space and defines meaning. :nod:


I encountered constructor theory a few months ago.
Intriguing model.


It fits in with some of your ideas and Jeremey's work.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 8647
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#110  Postby theropod » Apr 19, 2017 10:54 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
theropod wrote:Even if the simulations of universes were not crude they would still not be actual universes. Even if they were Star Trek holodeck realistic they would still not be real universes. Until billions of supermassive black holes can be created with physicality, and not just simulated, any such approximation falls immeasurably short and remains no more than a picture of a Lamborghini. We need not be lectured to about this as it a self evident fact no matter if the protestations to the contrary are slathered in pseudo-intellectual prose.

One wonders how much rope is going to be needed.

RS


Although you responded in the wrong post, I shall respond anyway.
I did not express that both simulations and actual universes were the same.
The whole point of the redefinition, was to bring that old concept to a paradigm involving empirical evidence.
The only type of universes being created by some intelligence, is simulated ones.

That should be clear enough for you.


I didn't respond to any post. I made a stand alone statement. When I do respond I try to make a habit of including the post to which I am responding in order to make it crystal clear of my intent. Note this post is a direct reponse to yours by quoting your words. A less generous person would label your error as trolling with the intent to elicit an emotionally charged response. I, however, feel you simply lack the forum experience to adhere to such common courtesy. The post you mistakenly claimed is in error is in fact an error on your part. You claimed to correct errors in your assertions as you discover them. Retract this error.

My simple retention must be failing me as I have yet to see any empirical evidence provided by you. You have provided links to things which are irrelevant and obtuse. You have had this fact pointed out to you. In which peer reviewed journal have your redefined paradigms been published? What tests have you conducted to support your claim of empirical evidence? I will gladly buy a copy of this paper if available. I am afraid that without such your claims of empiricism are nothing more than unsupported assertion. I do seem to remember you asserting that some simulation of a universe was in fact a crude universe, and not an approximation. I don't feel the need to waste my time searching this thread for where you made this statement. Someone else will probably come along and confirm, or refute, my recollection. My feeling is that even if my memory hasn't failed me you will deny, evade and move the goalposts.

RS

ETA: What I did was mix up the specific THREAD in which gobbledygook double speak is being spewed. After a while it all seems to blend.
Last edited by theropod on Apr 20, 2017 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
17 years off-grid and counting.

Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 6932
Age: 63
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#111  Postby John Platko » Apr 19, 2017 10:54 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
John Platko wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
John Platko wrote:

What part of you made up shit that England never wrote and implied that he did didn't you understand?


Laymen tend to prefer things spelled out.

I see that the paper may be a bit hard to comprehend, although Jeremy's work did express that life's meaning, is to attribute processes that optimize some paradigm.


The paper is self explanatory, Jeremey is an excellent writer. What is hard to comprehend is why you insist on misrepresenting his work. It serves no purpose.


You are still yet to explain how I have supposedly misrepresented his work.

Image

Jeremy's England work (page 920) describes that life is optimizing (and seeks to optimize) some range of thermodynamic properties. Can you attempt to understand that 'simple' factum?


It's not cool to misrepresent what people say. You can say something like: from reading that paper I gather .... That's fine, then people know that you are interpreting his work in a certain way. But if you really think you got it right. That what you're saying represents what he wrote and how he thinks about it then I suggest you run your idea by him. Get him to say, yeah that's close enough. Then you know you're not misrepresenting him. I would do it myself but I'm not feeling too good about how you've respond to members in your threads here and elsewhere to take this that seriously.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 8647
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#112  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 19, 2017 11:02 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.


Any math/scientific evidence for the claim above?

You must not understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat it for you.

God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.



Take that nonsense/garbage elsewhere.
Reported post.
Reason, nonsense/irrelevant response.

Beep bop boop. I'm sure they will react swiftly and most reasonably to your request. Boop bop beep.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10514
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#113  Postby John Platko » Apr 19, 2017 11:02 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.


Any math/scientific evidence for the claim above?

Image

You must not understand what I'm saying. I'll repeat it for you.

God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.


Non judgement is beyond deep learning.

(I'm working on my JP knowledge generator)
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 8647
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#114  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 19, 2017 11:31 pm

John Platko wrote:

It's not cool to misrepresent what people say. You can say something like: from reading that paper I gather .... That's fine, then people know that you are interpreting his work in a certain way. But if you really think you got it right. That what you're saying represents what he wrote and how he thinks about it then I suggest you run your idea by him. Get him to say, yeah that's close enough. Then you know you're not misrepresenting him. I would do it myself but I'm not feeling too good about how you've respond to members in your threads here and elsewhere to take this that seriously.


A long paragraph, but still no explanation of how I supposedly misrepresented his work.

This could probably have ended long ago, if you simply explained how the supposed misrepresentation took place.

Anyway, the following still applies:

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Jeremy's England work (page 920) describes that life is optimizing (and seeks to optimize) some range of thermodynamic properties. Can you attempt to understand that 'simple' factum?
Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan on Apr 19, 2017 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#115  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 19, 2017 11:35 pm

John Platko wrote:
Non judgement is beyond deep learning.

(I'm working on my JP knowledge generator)


Yes, deep learning is probably not sufficient alone, especially given that we know mammals do some form of reinforcement learning.

Deep learning though, probably ensues as some essential basis betwixt such a regime.

How far along are you with your knowledge generator?

Are you comfortable expressing what methods/technology you are using?

Is there any code/paper available yet?
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#116  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 20, 2017 5:48 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
Fallible wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
l'll give you a hint: it begins with a 'T' and ends with 'rolling'.


Ah, but it appears the original thread's content is beyond your cognition.
So much so that it appears alien/troll bound.


I think KIR is right -your posts come across as attempts to appear clever. Unfortunately you're trying too hard and as a result they are a disjointed mess.


That is silly, especially when I have mentioned many times now, that I am of average intelligence.

Yet your username, as well as your verbose and often incorrect use of English demonstrates a desire to present yourself as an intellectual.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#117  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 20, 2017 5:50 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:God reflects intricate space time events. Qualia arises and subsides in formless potentiality. Thus, the secret of the universe unfolds into the light of brains. Self power undertakes subtle brightness, but true faith projects onto an expression of human observation. The unpredictable is at the heart of humble external reality.

If John Platko doesn't appreciate the insight I've just revealed, he must not understand the technical details.


Any math/scientific evidence for the claim above?

Image

:rofl:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#118  Postby crank » Apr 20, 2017 7:45 am

Thommo wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
It does help me add to my signature, however.

Ah, perhaps you can shed some light on this! How does a theory regarding quantum phenomena help us out with the meaning of life?

It's all about horizons and manifolds and stuff. Very complicated. I'll have to get back to you with a more definitive answer. Currently, however, I'm busy watching videos about cats.


Very complex topology, your domestic cat. Definitely not isomorphic to a hypersphere.

All of mine are isomorphic to something that sure as hell is hyper, hyper what I don't know, but too damned hyper!
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10358
Age: 2
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#119  Postby Fallible » Apr 20, 2017 7:50 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
As I said before, the whole point of the redefinition is to update the concept so that empirically observed properties remain.
Now, the only type of universes creatable by intelligence, is simulations.
Can you attempt to understand this simple factum?


I understand the statement (just like I did the last 50 times you stated it), and I understand why it doesn't make your case. I also understand why you pretend to not grasp my objection, instead choosing to robotically repeat your assertions. Your words appear to indicate a bit of trolling, mediocre to poor quality at best.


I didn't detect any sensible/ empirically bound objection.
Anyway Let us continue this amidst the other thread.


Your desire to appear intellectual is making you badly misuse the English language. Amidst the other thread. Lol.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43958
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Super-artificial intelligence, a naive, intriguing approach?

#120  Postby ProgrammingGodJordan » Apr 20, 2017 8:02 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Yet your username, as well as your verbose and often incorrect use of English demonstrates a desire to present yourself as an intellectual.


Well, I have been referred to as smart by others.

However, being smart is a typical human property.

Anyway, the "God" in my username, is such that is redefined as follows:
Image
http://www.academia.edu/31660547/A_scie ... an_atheist

So, any regular human is God-bound.

...but that isn't a discussion for this thread, see this other thread for that type of discussion.
[color=Resor):[/color]
[url]http://
[color=GregrammingGodJordan[/url]
User avatar
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jordan Bennett
Posts: 172

Country: Jamaica
Jamaica (jm)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest