**From:** Ben Goertzel (*ben@intelligenesis.net*)

**Date:** Mon Nov 27 2000 - 05:33:47 MST

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Perpetual motion via entropy disposal (was Re: effectiveperfection)"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Reply:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*> In some areas, mathematics may turn out to be applicable, when particular
*

*> systems have underlying behaviors that turn out to give rise to
*

*> mathematical dynamics. This would be especially expected of systems in
*

*> which some quantity is conserved, or in which there is an analogue to
*

*> potential energys surfaces, or where you can use statistical mathematics
*

*> to describe systems containing a stochastic element, and so on.
*

You're listing the physicist's mathematical toolkit, but I suspect that the

right

math for complex systems like the mind/brain will be something different...

think: (abstract algebra + algorithmic information theory + functional

analysis)/3

*> > Yes, where differ is then in our intuition about the
*

*> relationship between
*

*> > mathematics and cognitive science. I think that a new kind of math is
*

*> > needed to transform cognitive science into a real science. Perhaps AI's
*

*> > will help us create this new kind of math.
*

*>
*

*> That is exactly and precisely the vision that I disagree with.-
*

Well I hope we both live long enough, in one form or another, to find out

who

was right ;>

*> Cognitive science will not become a real science as the result of math.
*

*> It will not advance as a result of advances in mathematics. As we
*

*> understand the mind better, cognitive science will approach computer
*

*> programming. And the best computer programmers are not computer
*

*> scientists; they are hackers. Now, any hacker gets a bonus to their
*

*> intuitive understanding by understanding complexity theory and computer
*

*> science and potential energy surfaces and, in fact, everything under the
*

*> Sun - but actual computer programming uses very little mathematics.
*

*> Sometimes a hacker winds up in a mathematical situation, yes;
*

*> cryptographers do, and sometimes the parallel processing people need to
*

*> resort to "something more complicated than simple arithmetic" to
*

*> understand the behavior of resource wait times and so on. But these are
*

*> the exceptions, not the rule.
*

In building Webmind, it is the rule, not the exception. You may say this

is because I'm taking the wrong approach in building Webmind, but I don't

think

so.... engineering a mind is very different from engineering most other

things, and

one of the differences is that the dynamics is very complex, so that

mathematical

concepts are much more useful than they are for thinking about most software

systems

And I acutely feel the lack of an operational math of very complex systems

like Webmind --

I feel that we'll be developing one as we go along, to keep the conceptual

progress &

engineering progress properly aligned...

*> In computer programming we build upwards, and mathematics is useful for
*

*> digging downwards. The farther upwards we build, the farther we get from
*

*> mathematics. Sometimes the low-level behavior of our own systems starts
*

*> to contain an element we didn't plan on, and we then have to debug it
*

*> using mathematics - thread resource conflicts, for example. But the
*

*> *frontier*, the cutting edge, the place where we're building one step
*

*> higher and inventing something new, will never involve somebody solving an
*

*> equation to find out what to invent, because equations can't tell us
*

*> that. The interesting, high-level parts of the mind will resemble the
*

*> piece of code you're playing with and that you didn't need any mathematics
*

*> to write, rather than the one time in a month that you needed an actual
*

*> equation to describe memory pool allocation conflicts as a function of the
*

*> percentage of utilization -
*

My experience is that the interesting ~emergent~ behaviors that come out of

the interaction

of various mind modules, can only occur because of mathematical insight

applied to the

particular workings of these modules. We don't yet have a mathematics

that's really useful for

understanding the emergent behaviors -- but I believe that the data we

gather while experimenting

with various versions of Webmind will help us to get there.

I understand your intuition now and I can't say that it's an invalid or

senseless intuition, it's

plausible enough. I just think it's wrong... not only does it contradict my

intuition, it contradicts

my own recent experience on "the *frontier*, the cutting edge... inventing

something new" ...

If you can engineer a thinking machine without using math as a significant

component, more power to you!

You're smarter than us, or have a better intuition.

Don't get me wrong -- there's more intuition than math in the Webmind

design. But without mathematical

analysis applied to key parts -- not just system-level parts like memory

pool allocation -- it just

wouldn't work.

Here's one way to think about it: Evolution often arrives at optimal

solutions by long experimentation.

If we want to avoid simulating millions of generations of evolution, we need

to get at these optimal

solutions in the first few experiments.... Mathematics is a way of doing

this, in many contexts. It doesn't

tell you how to structure the mind (at least not yet). It helps you figure

out how to get the general

structure you've intuitively conceived to ~actually~ work.

I think you're kidding yourself that you can hack a thinking computer

program. But, I could be wrong.

I dare you to show me I'm wrong ;>

ben

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Perpetual motion via entropy disposal (was Re: effectiveperfection)"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Reply:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: The mathematics of effective perfection"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT
*