Marvin Minsky on AI: The Turing Test is a Joke!
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2024
- www.singularityweblog.com/marv...
Marvin Minsky is often called the Father of Artificial Intelligence and I have been looking for an opportunity to interview him for years. I was hoping that I will finally get my chance at the GF2045 conference in NY City. Unfortunately, Prof. Minsky had bronchitis and consequently had to speak via video. A week later, though still recovering, Marvin generously gave me a 30 min interview while attending the ISTAS13 Veilance conference in Toronto. Hope that you enjoy this brief but rare opportunity as much as I did!
During our conversation with Marvin Minsky we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: how he moved from biology and mathematics to Artificial Intelligence; his personal motivation and most proud accomplishment; the importance of science fiction -- in general, and his take on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein -- in particular; the Turing Test; the importance of theory of mind; the Human Brain Project; the technological singularity and why he thinks that progress in AI has stalled; his personal advice to young AI researchers... - Věda a technologie
I so wish this brilliant, brave, and deeply honorable man had lived to see AI today and that we would be able to discuss it with him!!!
I've been looking for his opinions on the current state of AI and focus on neural nets, since he wasn't a big fan in the 60s/70s and afaik he kept criticizing them even after deep learning emerged. I haven't been able to find anything though, but it would be awesome to see him react to things like ChatGPT etc (though some might say that LLMs aren't really a huge invention in terms of new methods/engineering).
I think he would be like "ok, but there's still programming" lol
my left ear enjoyed this
Prof. Minsky speaks ever so softly. Nikola answers ever so loudly..startled the hell out of me every time. Got lots of exercise twirling the volume knob on my speaker. Apart from that, interesting ideas..
Hey Nikola, Can you change your audio mix to stereo for both mics in the future? When listening with headphones it's distracting to hear this left and right pan and your mic is mixed so much higher. Sorry to nag. Hope all is well. Fido.
Yeah, I understand. Thanks for the great work and bringing all these luminaries to us and for exploring this issue.
You're doing a great job Nikola. Thank You, Fi.
i heard it right when i read your comment. you were right to point it out
I thought my headphones were broken.
"Find the person whose thinking you admire the most and go and meet them".
But it's too late, Marvin...
This is so sad.... I hope he knew how he is rated and will go down as one of ‘ the great minds’ like those he named.
A beautiful soul. His humble manner matches his intelligence
Fascinating interview, thanks Nikola and Marvin!
RIP Marvin Minsky. He lived an incredibly cinematic life.
What do you mean by cinematic? I don't know him well. Just seen a few videos and really like him.
@@TheCorrectionist1984 He was as well known for his acting career as his academic one. He starred in most of the 80s action/porn straight-to-VHS movies.
23:59 is where he talks about the Turing test.
I agree too. As a software developer for the last 20+ years, only now I'm starting to see a real workforce demand for machine learning and cognitive computing, whereas before it was pretty much just academic and restricted to a few niche segments.
Are you sure?
Loved his last suggestion !! :) 😍
Minsky pretty much confesses to having been a full-time academic military contractor up until the 70's, when Darpa was restricted from funding civilian research. His resentment is obvious.
What i got from the interview " Basic research is needed in AI. The only thing we have seen in recent years of Artificial Intelligence research is the applications of AI" I think new computational platforms are needed to push AI to new heights such as Nano Computers, Quantum computers, organic computers. And also a better understanding of Intelligence in Biology and Social aspects as well. Its also important to understand that not just mathematicians, computer scientists, and engineers contribute to AI. Linguistics, Sociology, Anthropology, and others can contribute to AI at a fundamental level. I think.....
Having said all that I do appreciate that there are many technical problems that you need to solve if your goal is to create a human like AI that if asked believes it is self aware. I don't personally see that as a necessary goal. I'm very happy using AI that has aspects of intelligence that allow it to get work done, like driving me to work, helping me research and soon perhaps helping me learn more. AI making software smarter, not human.
Wow! this is great! Thanks, Nikola!
Minsky advised that there are opportunities for developing applications of AI yet there is very little investment in basic research. The difference becomes clear when you understand that cars and telephones have nothing to do with artificial intelligence. Many of those advancements in practical implementations of AI owe their success to other factors rather than the basic AI research to which Minsky was referring. Minsky hit the nail on the head in his own unique way.
Excellent video on the historical perspective.
You are most welcome Manu!
I think i found a way around the sound problem. At first i could hear very good Nikola voice but not proffesor's even at full audio, so i used a program to enhance audio output that is called DFX, but still the same. Then i enabled 3d surround on DFX and .... boom ... the magic happend, it boosted proffesor's voice and kept Nikola's audio at normal level. So maybe you all try 3d Sorround of some kind if you dont have this program.
engkostas That's how architect fix things. I simply put my left speaker behind my ear which made the voice of Minsky same on both sides. That's how builder fix it. Not as classy but easier.
I love Minsky's disgusting throat noises, which I presume are the result of spittin fire on mixtapes
Avi Gindratt underrated comment :)
he do be droppin gold bars tho
Dr. Minksy, your advice to "never give up" has begun to pay off.
23:44secs.... Turin convosation starts
Thank you
Somehow I had never heard of Mr. Minsky. I have been captivated for a few days now. A beautiful mind.
I've heard the name but nothing beyond "he was the father of artificial intelligence". It's interesting to hear him speak.
His most powerful contribution was to setback AI for over a decade. But ok, people can be wrong and admit so. But not for him. Kept trashing neural networks all through the way to his grave. Fortunately he became non-relevant as the years passed by, which is why you likely did not hear of him - real scholars and pioneers came to be made in the past few decades. He would trash them too but by that point nobody cared about this bitter old man.
in what part does he talk about the turning test?
You should have not had the outro be the same as the intro. Roll credits silently lol ASMR
I wonder if there have been advances in the debate over machines developing theory of mind or if there still is such a debate? It wouldn't surprise me.
R.I.P. My hero
Nice interview, thanks:)
on the coming of the age of technological singularity and the AI revolution, AI visionary Marvin Minsky in a July, 2013 interview :
"well, it depends on how many smart people get to work on it, and it's hard to predict because I would have never predicted that there would be fewer people working on AI now than 10 years ago.. but there are no jobs"
Marvin Minsky passed away 2016 before witnessing ChatGPT.. but visionaries could see what would happen before its occurrence decades or even centuries
one of the reason that researchers did not have faith in AI because of a misunderstanding of machine intelligence...most researchers assumed the so called "Turing Test" is the true measure of success of machine intelligence.. regarding the Turing test, Minsky commented simply:
"Turing Test is a Joke"
today, all AI professionals agree that it is a joke, but no one is laughing
Thank you Nikola :)
This is really interesting, what a great man.
Nikola you are making history!!!
Thanks Marvin.
A hero to modern cognitive science. Thanks.
Can you provide references to his major contributions?
how do you get these legends! Awesome!
I guess what he refers to as the latest 'theories' (if they are theories) are too commercial (or commercially pragmatic) to have any chance to succeed in serious strong AI. and it seems to me most of them are merely methods in similar or different directions to individually or collectively solve certain practical problems.
I feel there has been good progress lately in narrow AI like Siri, Driverless cars and other applications. There may be a shortage of AGI research in the US. That is why huge research in strong AI, etc. is being done outside the US like China, Japan and even Europe. Finally, AI research is being funded but under a different name called "Robotics".
brilliant. good job!
Good stuff!! It is a sad state of affairs in education department.
Interesting to see the impact of the government on advancements in basic science.
Minsky and Carl Sagan are the only 2 people that Isaac Asimov admitted to be smarter than him !! Respect
yeah and not einstein.
@@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493 He was talking about people he'd met personally.
@@andrewb8235 He was also a professor in biochemistry.
Tesla was smarter than ALL if them dude. . .
. Von Neumann was the smartest of them all.
dude this is awesome, bring more AI guys on the show
14:42 I know Mr. Minsky is a very smart man, but is he suggesting that "capitalists" are /were OK with monopolies? Monopolies only serve to help themselves or a small group of companies (in the case or regional monopolies, i.e. cable TV and internet providers) and push out or completely prevent competition in the market. This idea is counter to the foundation of capitalism. It's usually in nations driven by ideals of socialism or controlled by communism (liberal economies) that we see monopolies that are not only free to exist, but also established and supported by the government.
You are my admiration sir, i would like to meet you :)
Regards.
Yeah there are walls that tech hits, things can't go faster than that. You can't keep shrinking CPU's anymore than x. But what happens is we start using a new tech that replaces the current one and the speed marches on. We've gone from the abacus to valve driven to semi conductors and are moving into nanotech now, in the future we'll just keep on marching on with ever more impressive ways of keep the speed of processors roughly doubling every year. Not even world wars have affected this trend.
lol its hard to think of CPU's increasing in speed at the rate they do (for me anyway). But a CPU today is a billion times faster than one 30 years ago but uses just a fraction of the energy. A CPU in 30 years will again be a billion times faster than one today and again probably use a fraction of the energy. It still amazes me that you can track the speed increase in computers this way so accurately.
I think comparing AI progress with nuclear fusion is a bit of a teaser. Mr Minsky says, progress depends on the amount of smart people working in a particular field. Well in ITER, a lot of people are involved and as far as I know it is a proof of principle at first at some 500MW which is like a small caol plant. I am pretty hopeful. So fusion should be just around the corner and I believe the same is true for AI.
Too many interests intertwine with autonomous decision making, or analysing the ever growing data trail anyone is dragging along these days. There are too many organisations willing to grab the necessary research and development pennies out of their deep pockets.
Where does he talk about the Turing test ... ever since I heard of that I thought it was BS ... and I find it interesting that because of "authority" that silly idea has survived so long.
I do think that and know it's true because this is how the brain works. Our Neocortex has 300 billion pattern recognizers that organize every aspect of what we know and how we deal with it. A bit like 300 billion cpu cores all working in parallel together. It's an amazing piece of engineering that we can't match yet in hardware but CPU speeds increase with Moore's law and our brains don't. Ray Kurzweil puts the date at about 2040 for human level A.I. that can simulate what our Neocortex does
I'm just a nobody compared to Marvin Minsky but from my little peon place here in the cloud I can't help but disagree strongly with him about A.I, A.I research and the progress its made. For me, most of my life has been spent observing how little progress has been made. It's only in the last few years that I've really started to get excited again. Today you can talk to your phone and it can understand you, we have cars driving themselves, so many start-ups are focused on using A.I It's huge now.
If intelligence is associated with predicting future outcome of comples circumstances based of thousands of variables, surely a human could not test that because it cannot resolve those comples pattern if there was one to be found. The machine would surprise us with valid and reliable predictions: a simple example many be that my car gps predicts my arrival time better than myself. Passing the turing test would be just a tiny subset of its capabilities: the tip of the iceberg...
+Arnold Van Kampen yes and yes!! Either the machines will destroy us or help us live immortally. The emergent consciousness is yet to be unfold.
Legend
Nice interview, I have enjoyed it as well as some others.
However, all this talk about machine inteligence becoming like human, do we really need or want that?
I think it is more realistic and should strive to develop "machine inteligence" which will be better at some things and not really comparable at others. Animals have their own kind of inteligence, for example they can smell much better and also "understand" things that we cannot, they can also be very "inteligent" in movement, or surviving as a colony for example.
So in that context we can talk about animal inteligence, human inteligence, and also the coming machine inteligence, which we could cooperate and use. Developing another "human" inteligence seems a failed point to me.
That word you use (AI). I do not think it means (to Minsky) what you think it means. -Inigo
My guess is that Minsky would be partial to the sentiment "just because it's popular doesn't make it good". That said, I think we'll see a lot of fun and useful "intelligent behavior" based on tweaks to existing techniques before the next Minsky-approved breakthrough comes.
tsbhatnagar princess bride 👊🏻
Sponteneity and development rather than mapping probabilities, oh yes, yes, yes
The 'question' on Marvins 'beliefs' was irreverent during this interview.
Thats a point to ponder on...
January 24, 2016 rest in peace
A giant among us--so sad to see him age.
+Elbert Basa He died yesterday...
thanks for the update-- This is very very sad news
RIP Martin
I'd prefer a better word than impoverished but yes I view intelligence as nothing special. It can be found everywhere in the animal kingdom. And absolutely the greatest leap we've had in AI has been in CPU speed. We are titans of processing, massively parallel, hierarchically self organizing pattern matching machines. Computers today still need to be an order of a million times faster to match our pattern matching ability but when they are, we'll see AI more like us.
I remember reading that this couldn't continue though unless we find some new way of dispersing the heat energy (or whatever). I'm not a big hardware person; I'm a philosopher.
Hi Nikola!!! Love this interview with the legend. Do you have any career opportunities in your channel?
AI is a little more than just pattern matching. That, neural networks, and computer vision are not particularly new concepts in AI research. These systems lack the means for general intelligence and common sense reasoning. If all you needed is a lot of pattern matching then Google search would have said something intelligent already. Similarly you can also predict consequences of the laws of physics with statistics, but that still tells you nothing about what those laws are, how it works.
I find his distinction between "liberals" and "capitalists" interesting. My first impression is that Minsky is a conservative.
I disagree. He said in another video that it was ironic and a mistake that those politicians killed basic research.
You can push things with a string. You just have to wet it and freeze it first.
Truth.
Frozen String Theory
24:00 Turing Test: "...it's a joke...so, it's not a serious question." LOL: he clearly did not respect you (the interviewer) as being an intelligent interviewer, compared to, say, when Kurzweil interviewed him, he had highest respects. i.e. he was saying, "do your homework, son, don't waste my time with idiot questions". Well, yes, he was known to be impatient with non-geniuses. So I hope you weren't mad at him for that rebuff. I think he was trying hard to be polite, but really wanted to shout, "Idiot!" That's why he looked away from your camera, trying to hide his disgust at the question. Of course, what also came to mind were the tons of ignorant Hollywood writers making movies like 'Ex Machinima' using a supposed Turing Test to see if the Androids will rise up in rebellion against Man. Minsky was right: Turing himself said the test shouldn't be applied in the ways you all thought it should. Had you done your homework (especially by studying Godel), you'd know why.
23:20 as for less people working in AI and poor funding for basic research, awww too bad. Psychiatry / psychology was a Freudian pseudoscience to begin with, targeted at telling all of us that we do not have a soul (and causing much damage to society because of it). I like how Minsky perceived the Crux of the materialistic world-view on consciousness: "so does it mean murder is less of a crime because we are mere machines?" (paraphrased). That nails it. The materialistic view that we are a mere program, is latently genocidal. Godel was correct: there is NO formal system (programs) that can ever create strong A.I., and that's why Marvin et al were de-funded, once the Naval Officer Corps (Office of Naval Research, in a Navy which is predominantly Catholic) realized that strong A.I. itself is nothing but atheistic polemics, politics of trying to turn the USA into another USSR, as if we can be "monitored" and "programmed" to be "controlled" like Cattle: (BF Skinner Behavioralism...this socialist takeover is already well underway). Too bad for Minksy: the ONR finally realized they've been duped by him, and did the right thing pulling the plug. When will you wake up to that?
You think Kepler's hypothesis that the planets moved in ellipse was a pattern recognition? No philosopher of science believes that to be the case. No body thinks that you can pull out Einstein's relativity theory from just recognizing patterns in the date. Same reason you can't be a strict Baconian scientist: you don't know what is relevant data and what isn't until you facilitate new hypothesis . To me, strong AI overlooks the creative aspect of the scientific theory.
Broad domain problem solving has always been at the center of what it meant to be human.
If a machine can do it too, then so be it.
Once you accept the world is not flat, it is not a big deal anymore.
Probably consciousness is just emergent, so why make a lot of fuss about it and accept that it is slightly overrated and get on with it.
Look at it with the eyes of a child, who sees the world and accepts it as if it would have always been like just that.
Sure, there are computers, touchscreeens, worldwide communication, sure the world is a sphere, sure there is AI and they will ask was there a time when there were no such facilities?
+Arnold Van Kampen exactly.. If we could only find the neurons that is responsible for generating our consciousness then we're good to go.
R.I.P
It isn't a matter of republicans versus liberals. It's a matter of having competition or not. When there was a Hitler and a USSR, there was the need to invest more in new tecnology to make weapons, and to keep it secret, and no one is better on this than the military. With the end of the USSR, things changed together.
Ah now I see where you're coming from. Where you see software following a set of rules until it finds a solution and our brains being apart from that and much more special in some way. I see the our brain as being fundamentally the same as the dumb software that pattern matches. It's just doing so much of it that it seems to be much more. I think a Google car sees the world in a similar way that we do. We just have a lot more processing power to throw at it to flesh it out.
He would've been about 85 here, and he's got a sharper mind as an octogenarian than most people do at any other age.
This is a tough comment to respond to in a youtube comment. Need more room You have to start talking about what it is you mean when you say problem solving and hypothesizing as I'd argue that at a fundamental level, it's nothing more than pattern recognition. Software can do those things today but not in the same massively parallel way the Neocortex manages pattern recognition. The big problem as I see it with AI is a lack of CPU speed and its only a matter of time before that isn't a problem.
Self driving cars are text book examples of artificial intelligence in action. Just look up the definition and they absolute meet all the criteria. And I still disagree that pure research is necessary when commercial projects have driven AI so far forward so quickly. If Kurzweil is happy with how AI is coming along driven by business, his track record predicting these things is fine enough for me to believe in.
It does seem like most of the low hanging fruit in terms of technology was picked in the 19th and 20th centuries. Now every little advance requires more and more intellectual and money input, for less and less results. We really need the Singularity because people may not be smart enough to go very much farther on their own. Not that it matters to us oldsters who won't be there for the finale in any case.
Pretty much all technological innovations are equally hard because they are always at the forefront of the knowledge and economics of their time. The first people to make bronze used the best of their abilities and knowledge and invested vast amounts of their time and treasure to perfect the product. Today we are investing comparable resources in semiconductors and new materials. We just happen to have amassed thousands, if not millions of times more resources than the people of the bronze age and that enables us to do much more complex things.
@@schmetterling4477 I get what you are saying, but think of the two or three guys running a small, hand-made forge in a mud hut near an ore deposit. You could take those guys, put them near another ore deposit far away and tell them to make you an axe or spear. They would know how to make a hut, gather materials and build a forge, and then go out and find some good ore from the ground. After a couple of days they would be turning out perfectly acceptable product, plus feeding themselves. If you go into a factory now and find the guy who runs the machine that does the last step in making an axe, you will see that he knows none of this stuff. He gets blanks that are already mined, forged and graded. He uses a machine that he has no idea how it is made, and reaches into a nearby box to grab a premade handle, made from wood of a tree he doesn't know anything about. If you follow back the chain of all the material, machines and knowledge it will require millions of people to make this moment happen, and decades of R&D. This was my point. As we advance, each person contributes less and less, and knows less and less. It seems like this perfectly sensible and productive phenomena will hit a wall, and is already hitting the wall where no one actually knows the whole process, so really obvious things start to be missed. I think a super-AI could be useful in our present, and definitely will be required in the future in order to continue to keep up the pace from the past centuries now that single humans are no longer enough to do it. In fact, Elon Musk may be the last of this kind of single innovator who can see the big picture. Or maybe not. Always in motion is the future...
@@caricue That's a nice fantasy, but you can check out the known historical trade flows of the bronze age. Tin had to be brought hundreds, sometimes a couple thousand miles one way, copper hundreds of miles another (over land and sea, so now you have to build large shipping vessels, first). Then you needed a place with the right fuel and know-how. We have an example of what happens when tin is not accessible enough, then not even the bronze age happens. That is what held the North American plains Indians back. They had a copper culture but did not progress to bronze. Imagine that... people living for some 25,000 years on a continent with some of the richest ore deposits of the planet... and they keep hunting buffalo because they never even discover the riches beneath their feet. If they had, and they could have well before the bronze age in the Eurasian region, then America would have been Atlantis, conquering the entirety of the world in 8000BC.
That people know less and less is simply not true. Thanks to the internet I have access to more information faster than anybody in the history of mankind, even the most pre-eminent minds. I may not be as good as them using what I have access to, but in net I can do way more stuff than the overwhelming majority of mankind ever could. Not only that, but I can buy pre-packaged expertise in form of millions of industrial products, chemicals etc.. I am not a chemist and I can't cook as much as baking soda, but with the US dollar in my hand I can get every chemical the chemists can make made on demand. All I have to do is to ask someone to do it for me and pay them.
@@schmetterling4477 That seems like a kind of harsh response on such a esoteric topic. I'm pretty sure we are not even talking about the same thing. Like I said in my original comment, I won't be around to see too much more. I hope things work out the way you see it, and that the future is bright.
Autonomous cars aren't examples of basic research however. Their progress in the past decade had a lot to do with the sensors and engineering challenges but not so much with AI. The car has no concept of what it is doing, and like many current projects, the AI component is simply finding a solution to a problem it was designed to solve. The machine learning work at Google is nice, but not a representation of all AI research, and Kurzweil seems to have become the Molyneux of modern AI.
The government should always support basic science directly. It should not be relegated to the military.
I would give up all my savings To be in the same room with Einstein and Godel and Oppenhimer!
walter bishop It's a good thing you didn't include Newton in that list. He was an ass.
Bob Jones either that or he was a legitimate ass. He went out of his way to screw over some rival of his and had all existing paintings of him destroyed.
@@philv2529 nah
@@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493 you really don't know that Newton was an asshole?
i can't hear
🗽
go to 29.30 for best results
23:20 less people working in AI. Maybe just 20 people working on Watson. Wow.
Nikola I just subscribed. Very interesting interview. Can I ask you: is he a Christian, or does he love God and Jesus in some way? Thanks for the info. Regards
Of course not, you sad loser.
lol. What on Earth would make you think that?
Joscha bach brought me here
won't the cpu be hotter than the sun by then lol?
24:39…what a diva
Very stupid question to ask him to talk about his mistakes..you could see he was annoyed by it!! A brilliant man and thats the best question you could come up with???WTF
Ridiculous. This man was the biggest dumbass in the AI circles. Completely trashed neural networks and cannot even admit he was wrong.
Why mono 'left ear only' audio for the subject ? Irritating for saying the gravity of the interviewee ... 🇬🇧
If you limit your definition of intelligence to given some input criteria you get a correct answer or solution then I would say your view of intelligence is quite impoverished and brittle to certain problems. More to the original point you could then also say that AI hasn't advanced much since the 1950's or 1980's but we just have better computers and tools. It might help to understand the kind of AI that Minsky talks about... Many problems have remained unsolved for decades.
He didnt even mentioned his biggest mistake - smashing perceptron/neural networks theory and destroying Rosenblat's work
And that's what makes me have little respect. Even as neural network related tech grew he was still dismissive. This man set back neural networks for over a decade and if alive (and relevant) I'm sure he'd be parading against LLMs.
"'m very happy using AI that has aspects of intelligence that allow it to get work done"
But it is that AI that will allow us to build the next generation of AI and so on.
We are now at the point were we cannot separate humans from AI in terms of creativity.
CERN is such an example of this were people in the past would not have been able to do this without AI.
Some diseases have been cured with the help of AI and understand the human body requires AI.
Is this guy going to talk about the Turing Test is the title of this a joke?
Is he being interviewed by a robot? That's a very interesting story about AI funding professor, but let me ask you a totally unrelated question... What do you regret the most?
The basic principles of Platonic physics as of 9-10-2014
Roger Clough
1. All of the principles of Leibniz's Idealism, especially those of his Monadology, apply, in addition to the
principles stated here. If you do not completely understand the Monadology, you may misinterpret
what is said here.
2. The universe consists of two completely corresponding, entangled realms, the mental, which is alive, subjective and causative,
and the physical, which is dead, or essentially so, objective and passive.
3. The physical world is the world of spacetime and consists completely of bodies of matter (the physical)
so that space does not exist other than as perceptions in memory of the relative positions of all of the
other monads in the universe.
4. The mental world consists completely of Leibniz's monads as defined in his monadology,
except for the the highest or most dominant element, Plato's One or Mind, which has the universe as its monad..
5. The monads are quantum waves.
6.. All causation is mental and top-down and obeys Leibniz's pre-established harmony, which ensures
the best possible or least conflict among moving objects.otion .
7. Since the highest mental element is Plato's One or Mind. all causation and perception ,
directly and indirectly, is by the One.
8. The One is mental and timeless and contains, as part of its permanent memory, all of what Leibniz called necessary ;logic.
9. The physical correspondent of the mental is the world of spacetime and obeys the usual physical laws of
science including, to a certain exgtent, Newton's laws, and Einstein's laws of relativity.
10. The preestablished harmony has as its output the harmonic motions of objects in the everyday spacetime world of physics.
11. The physical world is the physical, spacetime world of science and experimentation, but is perceived by individuals as phenomenol,
meaning from only one point of view.
12. Since the physical world of spacetime is completely made of matter and force is not matter, force,
including the four principal forces, is a mental component of causation.
13. Thermodynamics, as well as all physical laws, are the mental rules of conduct of material bodies.
14. The universe is cybernetic, in which the One is the singular point of perception and control of the Many
physical bodies in the universe, just as a monarch controls his kingdom..
15. As such, there can and must be only one of the One.
16. Perception is the conversion of the physical, by the One through its monads, into experience and memory
by the One.
17. The physical world of spacetime and its physical objects, was made by the explosive creation of
physical objects from Plato's Mind into spacetime.
18. Life was also created at this time.
19. Intelligence is ability to freely make choices.
19. The One has the free will, within the constraints of the pre-established harmony,
and the intelligence and Mind, such that it is identical to Life.
20. Thus the universe exploded out of Life.
21. The basic characteristics of monads are given in Leibniz's Monadology. They are
sets, I surmise, in the mathematical sense of complete concepts, are alive, and are
nested to an infinitesimal degree. Much more is said of them in the Monadology.
If you do not completely understand the Monadology, you may misinterpret
what is said here.
22. Each human being is a complete concept and so is a monad containing other
monads, the principal one of which is the small m mind and its neurons.
24. The brain is a passive object completely controlled by Mind.
25. Each neuron is a monad.
26. Human perception occurs as input sensory nerve singles in the brain
are transformed by Mind into quanta of experience.
27 The awareness or apperception (to use Leibniz's term) of these experiences is called consciousness.
28. Since Mind is time-invariant, consciousness consists of changes in Mind, of a ordered
set of perceptions similar to the sequence of frames of a movie. But the brain
actually perceives such sequences as it would a movie.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Roger Clough
Reply via web post
•
Reply to sender
•
Reply to group
•
Start a New Topic
•
Messages in this topic (1)
Visit Your Group
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
why does he whisper?
Perhaps because he is in his late 80's, naturally soft spoken, and recovering from bronchitis.
AI communication then actually passed the Turing test in 2014.
So any phone call you get, where you don't reconize the voice can be an AI speaking.
To me, the most important point is the one that John Searle proves with his "Chinese Room" argument: computers can't see problems or make hypothesis about how to solve them, so there is no strong AI, only deductive procedures.
didn't do well at original questions though .
Well, old age sucks...
Minsky is asked about technologies such as Siri, google translate and Watson, and he doesn't sound that impressed. It sounds like he thinks they made most of the progress on those technologies in the 60s and 70s.
That embarrassing Platonic strain in western metaphysics
Since materialism, or bottom-up causation, dominates current western science and philosophy,
any mention of Platonism, or top-down causation, in which Mind is the sole active agent creating
and controlling reality, is treated as blasphemy or superstitious anathema. It has been so at least
since the Enlightenment, which quite successfully replaced superstitious religious ideas, such as
mind and spirit, with atheistic reason.
Yet the universe must necessarily be governed, as it appears to be, only by a single governing agent
if universal order, such as is found in thermodynamics (constancy of energy) , is to be maintained. Plato
called this creator and regulator the One, which reaches out cybernetically to control the Many.
Leibniz called this the pre-established order. Kant invoked the idea of the necessary importance of mind,
at least on the human level, in his man-centered metaphysics, for us to make sense of what we observe
by sorting sensory information into his mental Categories. Even Aristotle, no friend of Plato, had to make
the human mind or soul the local regulator of controller, although like Dennett, who seems to be a
follower of Aristotle in this sense, Aristotle's bottom-up philosophy had painted him into a corner,
since mind is necessarily top-down. Thus Aristotle had to claim that mind actually does not sort,
but in some sense, becomes, what it observes. Even Aquinas had trouble with that one.
Similarly In science, the world is controlled bottom-up in Aristotelian fashion, which is a puzzle, since
there is no intelligent bottom. And even Einstein was disturbed to think that there could be "spooky action at
a distance" (which in fact is an inherent property of thermodynamics if constancy of energy is to be maintained)..
More recently Stephen Hawkings, otherwise perhaps the most brilliant scienstist of all time, dismissed
the idea of a Creator God as being uneccessary since the universe was created by its laws. This
makes no more sense than saying that highway speed laws will keep vehicles from speeding.
I could go on, but either you get my point that the universe cannot be one of bottom-up causation,
but must be ruled by universal top-down causation, or not. I hope you can see the light
that only top-don causation (Platonism) is possible.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
I wish we could hear his take on Tesla today. Would we say it's no longer stalled.