Confusion over two Kinds of Coherence Hobbles Business and AI Development.

Keith E. McInnis commented on both my last posts implying that ...  I don't know what...; yet, I do know why AI fails and why science fiction writers were simply wrong.

The science fiction author Isaac Asimov. introduced (and later expanded upon) three laws of robotics in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although they were foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws are:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Science fiction often turns into science fact. But as of today, there are no actual robots with a capability anywhere close to those depicted in recent movies like I, Robot, and Transformers, or foretold in earlier ones; such as 2001: a Space Odyssey. In this case, one is forced to conclude that futurists and producers have missed the mark. This is mainly because it turns out to be not so easy to fulfill even the First of the Three Laws above; for that alone requires “knowing when to take action and then knowing also what action will likely be successful”. This need is met by the Causal Explanation Methodology or CEM, the diagram in my earlier blog post.

To bring this first law into more relevant terms we might say: "A father may not injure his family, or through inaction, allow his family to come to harm." Would we charge a father with breaking the law if he invested in the market and lost all the family's savings for retirement? Of course not. In this day and age, with the volatility of the stock market and the failure of banks, can any father, any trading program or anyone at all, exactly know which patterns indicate which actions one should take and when? Many believe that to be a matter of experience and almost entirely a matter of chance if not fortune or blessing.

It is not possible to establish a hard law that asserts what is right in a monologue according to the practice of precisely asserting true language where each label has an ascribed meaning. People do not think this way. It is just wrong-headed to think that labels can serve in any semantic sense of true agreement with present context. For this type of agreement is not and cannot be legislated.

As the attempts to date have shown (conclusively, imho) it breaks down. It does this all the time without fail. Why? It is not resilient. This is not a glib answer. All ascribed agreement breaks under the weight of the very act of asserting and ascribing. When an agreements relies on labels it eventually breaks down. It does this because it cuts off the investigation for resonance, it not only observes, it creates and uses complexity as an excuse to assert or ascribe — to state as fact an incoherent relation or misguided notion.

Exponents of this school of thought make claims (stating as fact, speaking in monologue with mechanical and economic efficiency) the agreement to which observes no further affordance. it is not a dialogue: it is not even an agreement but with a label. That is no agreement at all. It is a ‘transmission of information.’ There is no exchange. It does not listen, it translates, it represents. It computes and outputs. It is not resilient; not creative. Questioning is not allowed. Correction is the order of the day. Course correction is commonplace. It does not add to or improve the environment: it restricts the neighborhood and controls, frames and compartmentalizes instead and rejects as noise all that is disagreeable.

It is a reduction to machine.

To make reasonable financial or macro-economic decisions at any interpersonal scale the size of a family or larger; ought one seek patterns, be prudent and have the skills and technical knowledge to trade securities in the chosen sectors and sub-fields? Networking and ‘neural-network’ or machine learning algorithms can sift through the data with the greatest of ease and efficiency. Statistical probabilities have been well-covered and have achieved impressive results. There are mature Bayesian networks as well. Though none of them solve the problem AI set out to solve. They failed due to the incoherence of representation and category errors. They also failed because they did not have the abstract science or the doctrinal function necessary to do any other than the most imperceptive reasoning.

Further, Bayes networks are hobbled by the independence assumption. Any research of human understanding and awareness based upon Bayes theorem is doomed before it begins. People do not have independent stories or narratives. That is false! On the face of it! I am not interested in Bayes theorem when what I need to know is if the abstract value of a trade-up or trade-off is equitable or fair. I am interested in the abstract postulates of geometry applied not to shapes but to forms of abstract currency or commodity.

In light of the good Count Korzybski’s program of general semantics, the mathematician R.D. Carmichael gave a partial definition of a “doctrinal function” when writing about the structure of Exact Thought in his book “The Logic of Discovery” (1937, pp 110-146). A Doctrinal Function is "a body of propositions made up of a consistent set of postulates by such processes as compel assent to the conclusions reached." (Ibid. p 122-123).

Doesn't that make more sense? Think of personal or motivated actions as composed of not just one disconnected action, but as a “pattern of actions” –like those involved in the exchange of cards for cards of different value in a poker game. Just like in the song, "you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them" over the course of the game.

Which pattern of actions leads to success? In any given situation this has often been a bit of a holy grail --a mystical or mysterious object-- so many gambler's play, instead, with chance. Many people take actions for granted and still more are all preoccupied by chance. The words “you have to know when” may be grammar, may be letters, may be representations but that is not all.

The words speak to observing the complexity and affordance of the moment. They suggest one be vigilant and explore for an opportunity, investigate for resonance. The words suggest playing an active role in “you have to know when to fold them.” They encourage one watch and listen; ask questions. The words mark off a frame and environment where a dialogue takes place. It does not have to be one of talking or conversing: only a dialogue of play actions and exchanges. There is agreement between all players in the environment of the poker game. This is called agreement with present context and it is a characteristic of resilience. Poker is an aged and honored game of chance as are many others. It does not “break down” no matter who plays.

Modern AI or even university or government research has been working on ascribed coherence to labels. Can the entirety of human experience be anticipated, captured in a lable, grasped and understood? It does not have to be; if one has a doctrinal function. We cannot anticipate what kinds of geometric shapes we may be faced with in the future. Though no mathematician is the least uncertain that they can discover everything that can be known about the dimension, area and mass when they are encountered.

I did not go that way and I cannot speak to why anyone ever thought AI would work.  I have a new abstract science with a doctrinal functions that marks and grades the resilience of a given or present context. That is, I have an algorithm that seeks out and discovers the amount of resilience between a compression or other symbolic representation and a given or present context.  It is fully tested and proven effective.  I want to organize efforts to build more useful appliances.  That may be the wrong word, though what I have in mind is an appliance for processing exact thought according to a well-known doctrinal function of discovery.

I have conceived a fantasy game for teaching, abstract sciences (geometry, algebra and exact thinking) and how to recognize and use doctrinal functions.  I want to target dropouts and hard-case children already at risk or lost.  This 'game of life" has a mission to save lost boys and girls who have (against their nature) been caught in a whirling spiral and spectrum of dissonance caused by their nurturing in a system of ascribed coherence.  Anyone in the business of making games could score a big win here.  I will begin looking elsewhere for developers if no one nearby has interest in this sort of opportunity.



Views: 211

Comment

You need to be a member of GAINnet to add comments!

Join GAINnet

Comment by Keith E. McInnis on January 30, 2012 at 10:30am

@Ken What is needed to implement a demonstration of your innovation? HOW could it be demonstrated? I recently had a technology I surely thought was ready and discovered it is still way ahead of being ready for commercialization. 

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 30, 2012 at 4:34am

The poem ? sure how do I do that. I was not trying to be insulting I was trying to right how your words appear to a novice at what you do. it is genuinely how I saw your description.

Ecological    Behavior    Equilibrium

I just used other words to describe them yin and yang = formula,  Adaptive  Coherence = probobility

Greed = rational  Need for Speed =  Motivation   Patchouli = new age attractor  (Hippie perfume) a stretch I admit sorry about that one  and last but not least me being a total Quantum Singularity

I truly apologize and will remove anything  you ask I did not mean to offend just demonstrate.

Ecological Behavior Equilibrium

Comment by Ken Ewell on January 30, 2012 at 4:14am

That is a little insulting, indignant and out of place Roy. I wish you would remove it.  It is certainly inappropriate if not an inappropriate use of words.

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 30, 2012 at 4:10am

             ODE to Ken Ewell

A balance between two of many opposite coherence's, the randomness of the ecological against the rules of the establishment the Yin the Yang and other symbols of how nature and man struggle to find balance swirling around in a vortex created by greed and the need for speed you have not found balance yet but you have discovered that balance is itself an adaptive coherence undulating its way along altering the yin and the yang as it reacts and contracts pokes and searches but to be this kind of a coherence it must have a minus sign as its mirror image just a little behind and to the right facing the other way it smells of patchouli. Best poem I wrote all year Roy Wagner.

Comment by Ken Ewell on January 30, 2012 at 3:50am

That could be good advice Roy, since I'm not from around these parts.  I will surely keep it in mind. Thank you.

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 30, 2012 at 3:46am

Dear Ken,

People can use the method too; everyone can because it is an ecological and behavioral methodology with a core of equilibrium (not formulas, rational, motivation or probability or new age attractors or quantum singularities).

If you made this exact statement in person to of the vast Majority of humans in Gainesville ( People ) Anyone The Mayor, Bank Managers Police Officers anyone in Gainesville how many do you think would get it? know exactly what you where describing? and gain any real insight as to how they should now proceed except to possibly ask you to repeat it.

It is almost like you used the Krell educator on the forbidden planet I am not 100% sure you are not deliberately obfuscating on thin ice,

Average American has a Vocabulary of about 5000 active words if you want to help the people use these words whenever possible.

This could be away for only math whizzes to know that you have 

the real deal or your taunting Mork from Ork. LOL Roy

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 30, 2012 at 3:19am

Yes Ken the Typos didn't help I think its my keyboard too.

Its along way fro A to Z but I am worried about (to) stuck between them,

An anology is a Sword it can be used in many ways As sign of manhood as a  beautiful work of art  mere decoration, its symbolic,  as  tool it is useful, It can defend you or save a friend, It can kill you if you fall on accidentally or on purpose,

It can honor you Sir Ken it can be a dance partner, a splint or  mirror, a crutch/walking stick, fire poker butcher  knife/machete' .

Man gets to choose what it does its design was but for a single purpose. Thanks for listening Roy

 

Comment by Ken Ewell on January 30, 2012 at 2:28am

I think I understand you Roy.  Formatting makes no difference.  I completely agree with your concern and you have every right, even a duty, to be skeptical of any claims like these and to question them thoroughly before you adopt them or use them for yourself.  No one else, and certainly no machine, can ever order or regulate a free citizen to think.  The ideal approach Roy, if I a may use that word by way of example, is the approach of skepticism.  The approach you are taking here.

So if we take that for granted, what computers can do for us is A. record the facts as they happen.  B. calculate the values associated with the facts, while: C. executing the formulas that we give to them.  Otherwise a computer is just like a light switch, a paper weight or desk clutter.

The way it is today Roy, computers do not record facts, they record observations and representations.  They can neither anticipate nor adopt facts from sensual experience as people do -- so they can only do some calculations on some math and move about copy or replace some symbolic representations that could mean anything or nothing at all.  That is pretty much what you are saying Roy, --they cannot be trusted.  You do not have to be a computer scientist to be right.  Am I right Roy?

I am against that too Roy.  I am on your side.  

CEM is not a computer or a robot.  I siad it could be a basis for future computers or robot brains.  This is because CEM is a precise way of thinking about facts using common notions that are part of experience Roy.  Like riding a bike or swimming or making a pie. There is a method to doing it.  CEM is a method.  A very, very, very fast method of very precise and very exact procedural thinking (that is thinking with a purpose in mind).  

Because it is procedural, we can and did make it into a computer algorithm and we implemented a computer system with it.  Those are examples of what can be done with it.  But that is not all.  People can use the method too; everyone can because it is an ecological and behavioral methodology with a core of equilibrium (not formulas, rational, motivation or probability or new age attractors or quantum singularities).

It is not a machine and it does not suppose anything, predict anything, or decide anything (other than a basic quantity, a unique weight).  Like a set of scales weighs a piece of meat, a hunk of cheese, a pile of dirt or anything else --  CEM weighs precise and exact thoughts about how to perform an operation: say making a sandwich or cutting cheese or something more complicated like building a firm or organization. 

Think about it Roy, there is a very small space between two opposing endpoints such a good and bad. They are like neighbors in a tenant house or apartment building, butted up and adjacent to one another with hardly a space in the wall separating them. It is all that keeps them apart and from mixing with one other and fouling each other.  

Now think of the space between the letter A and the letter Z.  That long expanse leading from A to Z.  That is the space and number of dimensions in the permanent space of language among which the end points or trajectories called good and bad are weighed and measured. That is complexity and there is nothing ideal about that.  It quickly becomes nothing but chaotic behavior unless it is checked, regulated and precisely and closely monitored.

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 30, 2012 at 1:31am

I give up :)

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 30, 2012 at 1:23am

Dear Ken,

                I will type it manually cut and paste is not working. The ideal I was referring to is the last definition however all the definitions could apply I apologies for not re-posting .

Again I am not trying to be critical just cautious you describe yourself working on this for 40 yrs.

Of course it is extremely important to you that others consider it ideal? 

I was just pointing out that the " Ideal " for an Army General is completely different to the "Ideal" I personally would wish for. Both of these ideals or anyone else's are all different in some way.

So how does your decision making program algorythym (entity) choose the answer to give?

Is it based on the end results? as in the end justify s  the means? 

Can certain parameters/ biases be locked in  so a human will not be purposefully or indirectly harmed by its decisions.

That it will not cause harm to itself unless that breaks the above laws yada yada yada.

Back to Schrodinger's Cat's quantum coherence is rarely seen on the macroscopic level.

Somethings have to be seen to be believed? or at least how was the reasoning of the question asked or of an Order/Action or Answer/Advice that was decided upon can it be seen with your own eyes.

If by coherence you mean all things in tune humming along together in unison or at least trying to stay in tune.

Coherence can also mean the end of any argument/ movement the waves cancel each other out causing incoherence, indecision, hesitation, inaction. umming and arrring.

What about people like me or random events that seem to delight in making waves.

I wanted to know the answer to this question

If people are expected to listen and trust its advice or obey its orders how do you ensure it has Humanities and/or their's.

If it has the ability to at least considers their  interests as a guideline                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               and not just its own omnipotent musings.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   best interest's for whatever reasons over those you have felt in your heart Thanks Roy wagner

Events

Like GAINnet?

GAIN LUNCHEON

Don't forget to register for the GAIN luncheon in July! Due to remodeling, Carrabba's is unavailable for our scheduled June luncheon. GAIN will be taking a "summer break" but will be back in action for the July meeting!!!

"Inspire, Connect and Educate Entrepreneurs who want to change the world".

Birthdays

Birthdays Today

Birthdays Tomorrow

© 2013   Created by WE|AR Interactive

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!