Tuesday, August 5, 2014

The Super Science of Philosophy and Some Confusions About it - continuation of the discussion on the "Strong Artificial Intelligence" thread at G+

On : ...

See the recent previous blog-posts from which it continues: ...

//By the way, I agree with some of your claims (but they should be elaborated with examples - grounds of reason, something that you do not do, unlike me - that's the purpose of the "many words", to build up images and context.)

So I actually do have "a theory" of intelligence and universe, which are going together, published prior to Hawkins' book, the trendy "Singularity" PR, the term "AGI", the "Deep Learning" popularity.

And one additional reason for people not understanding each other is our ape-character - social ranking. That's one reason why a few people would bother to check what the other has written, his theory etc., that is above comments of a few lines, unless he displays high social ranking.

One would read Kurzweil, or Hawkins, but not Todor Arnaudov - my theory is in some aspects "kindred " to Hawkins, however published prior to Hawkins' - who cares. There are even worse cases - see below.

"Randall Lee Reetz
10:02 AM
There is a big difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy only respects the thoughts we like to think. It's a mirror on self interest.
Randall Lee Reetz
10:04 AM
Science is what we have had to invent and work at because of philosophy's obvious blind spots."

Todor Arnaudov:

Sorry, the above shows that you don't have a clue about philosophy, especially the rigorous one. The "mirror of self interest" that's exactly the opposite of the systematic philosophy - it aims at being as objective as possible; even the term "objective" is used for "detaching from the Will" (in Schopenhauer terms, that process is related to Brahmanism and Buddhism terms, "losing yourself");
the motive to be as detached from the Will as possible.

The right philosophy aims for grounded, explained, starting from most basic and provable (as long as its possible) grounds - start with the dissertation "On the fourfold root..." which is exactly about the grounding of the truths as matching to the reality; as I mentioned earlier - 180 years prior a known as a seminal paper about that in the official "science" of AI. The line of Marx, Engels and Lenin is also about scientific method of philosophy and a tight correlation of philosophy and science (see especially Engels), unfortunately it's "polluted" with politics/ideology.

Finally "we" who first invented and worked at science methodologically were namely the philosophers... From the Greek ones to the Renaissaince ones. Of course practice and theory, and philosophy and science go and should go hand by hand, that's another word/way of talking about "sensory-motor grounding", related to the "Facculty of understanding" (Kant, Schopenhauer), the mapping between higher abstractions, lower abstractions and the lowest level data that's empty of intrinsic meaning. Good philosophy is on the top of the sciences.

As of the "many words" of mine - that's one of the problems of understanding - incompatibly different bandwidths. It's not only about time, it's about the size of the buffers at the lower levels - working memory capacity, the Facculty of judgment/top-bottom connection within the cognitive hierarchy; differences in the capacity/access to lower level sensory data in various modalities; capacity to imagine/trace the visualization/materialization of the words into images; and of course - simple knowledge when if missing, and also the attention span in time. (See the other comments for more details)


Philosophy is about higher generalization, higher cognitive span - it's steps above science in generality and scope, respectively it's harder to be grasped or held in mind by some scientists/engineers, whose subjects normally require shorter/smaller span - "out of memory"/"lacking grounding data"/"insufficient transitory-buffer-capacity" (see my other comment and the answer after it's published), and it requires to know to what the abstractions refer, so it's supposed that you know the concepts and "mechanics" of the special sciences as well.

The good philosophers are also scientists and engineers and artists in one way or another - you should understand the special sciences/domains and search for the general between them. If you are specialist only in one field (or a few) you can't notice or care about the association to the others, the causal chains between them, that your field is in fact the same as some other fields, how your own field came to existence and why is different, etc. The data to make this inference is missing. Most people suffer from multi-interdisciplinary blindness and multi-modal learning limitations.

That's why many people ask questions whose answer is otherwise obvious - they however scan the world with a spotlight in the darkness, instead of having a sun to enlighten the whole view at once, and if there's a lack of memory to keep the track while scanning - that might be a long journey of trial-and-error within the darkness, until reaching the obvious.

Regarding your claim - there are philosophers like that - it is the sophistry, perhaps some of the subjective idealists, perhaps also some servants of some ideological needs or just "immitators" - they mirror what the audience would like to hear, this is often blah-blah-sophy, not quality philosophy. Kant and Schopenhauer for instance were definitive AGI researchers, aiming at understanding intelligence and creativety completely, as much as the means and knowledge at the time allowed; unlike almost all of the official so called AI researchers for the most of the history, who were mere programmers or logicians or engineers or mathematicians, or combination of some of the above - but were missing the grounding "glue". I would name a few who did have a clue about the glue: Vladimir Turchin and Alan Kay.


So what's your knowledge or rather *understanding* of philosophy?

In fact the modern scientifical methods were first understood, proposed and formalized by philosophers - start with that fact; they knew better than the "scientists" what one had to do; many of the typical scientists are rather "pedants", performers of what's prescribed (initially by an authority - the "biological" method of the social ranking of the apes which humans are); most people are like that, and that's why science in Europe was dead for a millenium in the middle ages.

It was dead due to bad philosophy and because, let's call them "scientists" (empiricists), the more "practical ones" couldn't make up a way to understand the facts given the low resolution high generality data they started with and due to too much of obedience to the bullshit of the autorities (and perhaps the more limited amount of working memory, compared to the quality philosophers who then came).

"Angels" and "deamons" ruled the world - it was empirically proven - if you were bad, the sacred forces of Good moved you to the stake and you got burned in order to save your soul! People were bad and sinful, they didn't follow the Commandments, that's why they got ill and died! Who ever needed a better explanation - it was proven empirically.

Then science was revived not without the impulse of good philosophers, who are not pedants, they broke the existing fake dogmas, started to break the obedience to the authority and started to apply and suggest rigorous methods, instead of sophistry and pleasing or serving the religious authorities: Francis Beacon had important works on the inductive method in science, Descarthes paved the way of Calculus and started the idealists school of thought, which reached to Kant and Schopenhauer - their philosophy is a theory of how to build an AGI, so long as you understand it and have enough of working memory to keep their sentences in mind.

Indeed, I would claim that Kant was also an abstract mathematician. "Turing machine" is some 150 years late to Kant's true early definition of a computer - namely the Kant's emphasizing of the appropri conceptions of time, space and causality. This is the most abstract definition of a programmable computer: it needs a clock generator ("time") - there must be changes, and at the lowest level they should be expressible in 1D (the lowest possible dimension, the simplest hardware); it needs memory (state, "matter") and causal laws for the changes to happen in predictable manner, rather than having a random number generator* - that's the computer architecture, the instruction set, the most basic "physical laws", upon which higher forms are built.

* in fact random numbers are also not "random" and follow the law of their distribution; the probabilistic laws are also laws

Schopenhauer extended and made it even more clear - and that's all of the above: a Universe model, a model of a computer, a model of simulation of scientific simulations.

Also, just to mention regarding the talk on evolution here - his otherwise philosophical theory is about the Evolution, which in the beginning was such (that is: more abstract/general/higher science than the direct, purely empirical zoology). He discuss about the evolution (development, emergence, "generatio aequivoca") of the live and of the Universe and mind - and is several decades prior to Darwin - "the scientist".

- He induces his theory from the sciences, strongly refers and supports his claims with biology - zoology and botany - and all other scientific knowledge, available at the time;
- he defines the "anthropic principle" (not using the term);
- the "struggle" between the species, the crude forces of nature (the Will) that care more for the survival of the genus rather than the species and even less for the individual beings - however the individual objectivation of the Will, the individuals, struggling for their own surviving and fighting with the other forms of the Will;
- the fitness of the species to their surroundings and that they are mutually correlated and by the peculiarities of the environment one may induce what kind of animals would live there, and that in different places with similar climate and conditions live similar species, even though they were not exactly the same - because the evolution have lead the Will through similar obstacles and they had to survive in similar conditions);
- respectively that infers the survival of the fittest;
- the humans as higher than animals only in the extent and of the level of "the objectivation of the will", but qualitatively the same (something radical for 19-th century, where the egoistical humans were trained by the Western religions that animals "didn't have a soul");
- that the apes and other of the smartest animals are just one step below humans, they have similar "Understanding", but don't have "Reason";
- that the first human was probably born from the womb of an ape (i.e. not a human);
- that the first humans should have been black-skinned or dark, not white.
Etc. etc.

Let's visit also Marx. He is the proto-father of systematic Sociology, modern Economix; his thought, as with Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietsche is also related to Systems sciences, Cybernetics and together with Engels and Lenin they constantly searched and displayed correlations between the more abstract and the more specific (where honestly, where ideologically).

Notice also one other detail. Only Kant among the above was an academical, but as Schopenhauer mentions - he was an exception, because he lived in time of an enlightened monarch, who was a philosopher as well.

All the others were dissidents out of the universities, "non scientific"/according to the adopted values, some of them were viewed as "cranks" - Schopenhauer or "insane" - Nietsche.

That's it with the "bad" and "self-interested" philosophy, which is in fact a higher level of science and a "spawner" of other special sciences, because it sees more of the landscape**, which allows it to understand, explain and forsee things that normal scientists notice or "prove" decades or centuries later with their pocket spotlights and the smaller scope of view. The latter are driven more of the "blind will", the evolution that doesn't understands its aims and just "works". If they had a clue and understood the "bad" and "non-objective" philosophy they may have made the same "new" discoveries much earlier.

** Multi and interdisciplinary researchers are kind of philosophers as well, they are "meta-scientists". Theoretical physics is also close to philosophy, it's speculative and the most general/abstract of its "sisters".

Working memory capacity, traces of thoughts ... - continuation of the thread on G+ "Strong Artificial Intelligence" [Continues]

Todor Arnaudov's answer to Randall Lee Reetz at ...

No theory at all? I don't think so. I'm sorry if some of the words/terms sound "embarassing" - it's not "politically correct", but are facts called with true names. That's just measures of intelligence, emotions is what humans often see as the most important though and lose the rest (not the method, but your "existential ..." if I rephrase you).

There's rather no theory in the short statements - where is it in 10 words (what's their purpose at all), it suggests super short attention span - first of all. These ones don't have internal "physics" and structure, to name one, and scarcely refer to anything specific, or it's just a term or two or some general claim.

My comment refered to a bunch of specific concepts and works (I could extend it), and there is even inter-sentence structure/comparisons - for example the difference between the span of the intelligence which is one of the reasons for misunderstanding/impossibility for understanding - Einstein vs Schumacher.

As of the "too many words" - one of the reasons why some people don't understand each other. Incompatible bandwitdhs limitations/impatience/grounding/experience/..., another implied by the above is that they can't follow each-other thoughts.


Turing machine is too simple a model, it's "exhausted" of material and obvious at a glance, - more structure is needed, such as:

Randall: "a small intelligence advantage. - ... the question is why?"


The comment gives some answers, which at a level of verbal short expressions (...) is what one can get.
So it's about:

- Working memory capacity (in narrow cognitive science sense that's the 7+-2 thing, and in more general sense that's the span of the focus, the amount of data one can process in a chunk/a step/a moment, or can hold for longer for processing without refering to external sources);

- The exent of the connections between the levels of cognitive hierarchy, the lossyness/how much is lost between the levels; the extent of assymetry of bottom-up to top-bottom; the availability of access to the different levels of abstraction of sensory records from the different sensory modalities (one who doesn't recognize musical tones cannot understand a melody or a chord or a symphony as a composer who does);

These connections are related to the defined more than 200 years ago hierarchy of Reason(concepts, most abstract, most general, executive function; serial, small capacity)--Facculty of judgement-Understanding(simulation of the causal forces of the Universe)-Input (external and internal).

All of the above is related to the capability of grounding and understanding of grounding, how much one operates with a model of the Universe or just doing blind calculations without understanding;

-- Facculty for imagination, related to "Visuo-spatial sketchapad" capacity, fantasy; that's connected with the WM capacity, the visual hierarchy and grounding as well.

">>a small intelligence advantage. ... the question is why?"

First of all, it may be not small, but "on/off" - such as missing connections/"facculties" to learn in the appropriate sensory-motor data chain, making you incapable to understand operationally for example painting or dancing or playing the piano. Humans possess "general intelligence", but only humanity as a whole with all the technologies has "versatile intelligence", or as I call it: Versatile limitless self-improvement capability. Individuals do not have truly general (versatile) intelligence, they are bottlenecks somewhere in the brain that make humans unable to learn in some of the modalities or inter-modally beyond most mundane levels, compared to the talented ones.

Second - due to the hierarchical/heterarchical nature of brain/mind, and also the working memory limitations, there might be "fire walls", "valves" where conceptions cease to grow - for example the mind cannot hold all of the required samples at the same time in order to see the causal relation.

Third - you're right that time matters, that's one of the dimensions of the scope/span of the attention, both in narrow term related to consciousness and in wider - a topic that you may investigate and revisit for a year, a decade, for life, and to see from new points of view over and over again. This is related to non-cognitive forces as well such as lower biological needs; to distractability, to the development of the mielin in your brain, to your life situation.

However time doesn't help when there are "interrupted" connections (such as sensory modalities data) or insufficient working memory, which in the human brain is not unlimited.

For example, one reason why some people cannot understand Kant thoughts is that they couldn't keep in mind some of the sentences, or just keeping their vocal representation in the loop overloads their mind so they can't think also about the implications, or see the connection to the following sentences or the past ones.

Again, Schopenhauer has actually talked about that issue in the chapter for the "Essential limitations of the intellect" in "The world as Will and Idea", volume two, ch. 15 - that the highest thoughts/consciousness/Reason is in time, sequential and in order to think of something else, the previous thought should be removed, and only some traces should left, that allow to keep the trace, the direction, the trend, and the rest should go deeper. If one doesn't have enough resources to keep the traces alive, to "bear in mind", she would lose the point and would see the thoughts/sentences/concepts as "unrelated".

If that is applied for a long chain of operations and if the results of the operations can be output and stored outside so that they doesn't need to be born in mind anymore and can run on their own without human understanding (technology, machines) or can be encoded in a cheaper and faster memory such as the premotor cortices/cerebellum as motor programs available on demand without loading the precious consciousness resources) - then a huge abyss grow between people and apes, and between humans who're talented/trained and the rest.

Also there are fields where you can go deeper while still keeping the "trace/connection" foot-print low - that's in the highly formal logical chains where the truth of the rest is not questioned, or if you do calculations. Eventually it has to be mapped/connected to some grounds, like the axioms in Euclidean mathematics and the initial conditions of the problem, which are considered "obvious/proven".

So as long as you have enough of memory to bear in mind, you can run for centuries and produce new results; if you don't - you're left as an ape and the gap grows. Some apes or monkeys (don't remember the species) for example would warm themselves if they found a fire, but they would not throw pieces of wood in the fire to keep it going. Also, apes are known to use tools, but not to use tools for creation of new tools - insufficient resources. Similarly as the children grow, their capacity to bear in mind items grow, as the lenght and the complexity of the sentences they can produce or comprehend.


As of the citation from Einstein - let me send it in the previous century. In "Paregra and Paralipomena" (if I'm not mistaken), S. emphasizes the fact that the ordinary people have "very short thougts", in other works also he mentions that the difference between a genius and a "blockhead" might have an endless amount of intermediate steps, but in essence it's only quantitative and in the extent, the ingenious ones see the world more distinctly and clearly and are able to focus/concentrate all of their mental energy in one spot, they can be "objective", detached from the "Will", the biological "self interest" such as social ranking/status, money, sex etc. The average people cannot concentrate and think or analyze experience for the sake of it, they are too much concerned with their personal interest which distracts them and keep them for focusing.

As of some more "scientific" evidences for the working memory stuff:


Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14,

Reply to Conway et al. on Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor

A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual
items and toward structured representations

Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences


In the abstract of the above: "The capacity for simple visual features is highly correlated with cognitive ability."


Regarding time again - it's discussed in the theories of Hawkins (in On Intelligence), of Boris Kazachenko, of neuroscience - the time needed for the sensory input to go to the PFC - images shown for too short time like in the editing in TV and modern action cinema only "fly-through" mind and do not get critically analyzed or steadily remembered. See also the biophysics, researchers on the "ADD" of current society, which is caused largely by watching television, Indeed, the claim that it is a (legal) drug is made by "official" scientists, there are hypotheses that the rise of the drug-addictions in the 60-ies is due to the growing up of the first TV-breed generations. The fast-changing images promote novelty-seeking/dopamine "shortcuts" and addiction, and people become more susceptible to catch addiction from chemical drugs. If you do not believe that, see for example a summary of the research through the decades by the Romanian researcher: http://www.helikon.bg/books/153/-Телевизията-и-детето_153788.html.

My own theory refers the extent/level of understanding also to the amount of time (for deeper, superficial, so that's "real-time physicist" or theoretical physicist etc.). That's the resolution of perception and causation in the dimension of time, respectively related the level of generalization/the span of data records or the prediction period in the future and the levels of detail.

To reiterate something else on the "small advantage":

I believe "small" has to be defined better and more convincingly as a meaningful concept in order to make sense. In Chaos Theory they use to say that "a small difference in the initial conditions may lead to a big difference in the final state". "Small and big" are too definitive, but they are vague. For example in a textbook they once said "1 mm difference of the position of a sled, may lead to 60 m deviation at the end of a slope".

Big? It's just 60000 times the initial difference.
One may say the opposite: it's rather a small change, bearing in mind that the distance between two molecules is bigger than the difference between the initial and the end condition (in orders of magnitude), and that the position depends obviously on all the path and the obstacles and details that the sled has to encounter until arriving at the end - so it's not just the difference in the initial conditions (relative position from a previous run), it's the whole situation and the initial unknowness of the complete situation with appropriate/sufficient resolution of detail that leads to the apparently "big" difference.

Somebody having wrong/unclear/low resolution model getting excited about being unable to predict the results "as he thought he should have been able", instead of criticizing/correcting/enriching/... his model.


And yet another answer to that arrogant and short-memoried guy, insulting me, but giving food for a good post, enjoy! :D

Todor Arnaudov


Randall, I would rather suggest you do it. I had a written and published theory far more clear than yours (matching in some points) when I didn't even have a moustache. However yeah - I'm a far quicker typist than you, obviously...

[http://research.twenkid.com/agi_english/ - see the slides

As of some more "scientific" evidences for the working memory stuff, let me repost it to your insult:


Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14,
Reply to Conway et al. on Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor


A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual
items and toward structured representations


Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences


In the abstract of the above: "The capacity for simple visual features is highly correlated with cognitive ability."


You don't understand because you don't care or if you do perhaps have
too short working memory for that kind of presentation - one of the serious reasons why people don't understand/care for each other, explained in details in the posts, as well as in referring scientific publications.

You mistake "science" with "limited working memory" (to the extent that you accept).

Yes, science (as well as philosophy, as well as evolution of the Universe in some of its aspects) is about optimization, compression, shortening.

However there's a limit beyond which you start to lose detail and turn to too general, of which you cannot induce anything more , or lack grounding.

There's no cell made of one molecule.

Some of your claims - see them in my theory (for example) among others - published decade(s) or more ago, by a kid.

However they are too general and confused said that way - that's something that John points out.

The "evolution" should be defined more distinctly. For example I agree about the evolution of the Universe as a whole, however at the same time John is right that there are "sub-Universes" - the individuals whose goals are not always synchronized with the overall trend, not all the time.

The individual is a sub-universe aiming at his own goals. And within an individual, there are other subuniverses which also have conflicting goals and struggle to overcome the others.

Boris Kazachenko has concepts called "Conserved core" and "Adaptive interface", that is related to the concept of "Meta-System Transitions" of Vladimir Turchin. That's about evolution in more articulated form of expression, not in one sentence.

The overall results produce the evolution of life and Universe.

At a higher level of an individual there's the genus - which is also having its interests that are above the interests of the individual, but below those of the Evolution (of life) as a whole, or Evolution of universe as a whole (humans and technology destroying living forms, species and genus being eliminated from existence).

Your claims alone, even when agreed on, are not operational in that form.

You need to add more specific and "physical", that is causal, details to "run" it - something that needs more words than most people use to take in one "bite".

And one "philosopher" such as Schopehnauer had 3500-4000 pages worth of incremental and all-directional proves of one-single thought. You have - how much, a half page with words only.