[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12 Human Wisdom vs Meta-Intelligence. Spiral Development
Louis Kauffman
loukau at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 22:54:54 CET 2023
Dear Joseph,
We can evolve new ways to discuss spiral development. I was pointing out that it may help to examine the relationship between a fixed point and the process leading to that fixed point. The situation goes both ways in that often the fixed point tells you the process as well when one unfolds the structure of the fixed point. This occurs in our thinking and in our language in relation to the felt concept of the present time. When we speak of Now we are making implicit identification of Now_{t} and Now_{t+1} and it is through this identification that we have our moving concept of the present time, which is really a changing time. There are different ways to grasp such situations, some involving non boolean logics for those who find that way of working useful. I think that it is important to realize that we use our ability to discriminate to produce boolean situations, always understanding that they have their limits. Thus we reason in a fully boolean way about the positions of the cards in a game, under the assumption that the deck is fair and that no one is “cheating’ and that we can recognize the cards. Within certain parameters of discrimination, we create boolean domains. The same is true for mathematical models. I can reason about 2n x 2n checkerboards with n = 2^{137} by assuming that these boards behave like the 8 x 8 board in my living room. These assumptions are in this case about an imaginary board, since no one will ever build a board that size. In this sense, mathematical thinking always goes beyond the simple boolean by using some assumptions that make a domain that is subject to our reason. In extrapolating to what is so in the world of our operations, some patterns do not always hold and then one needs to understand a new domain of rules. I’ll stop at this point. To be continued.
Best
Lou
> On Nov 13, 2023, at 9:41 AM, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch wrote:
>
> Dear Louis, Plamen, Eric, Pedro and All,
>
> This is a most significant response. What is stated here in reference to the spiral development of AI is true of other processes, provided they are of real, ontological phenomena. It also introduces the idea of something being, or being partly, two opposing things at the same time - distinguishable and indistinguishable.
>
> As I understand the discussion, however, the development of AI is monotonic; it never goes backwards. Human intelligence and other cognitive phenomena cycle as well as spiral. Information can be lost as well as gained. The applicable logic cannot be standard propositional or predicate logic but something more oriental. I stop here since this is not the subject of this thread, but perhaps it might be of another one, e.g. about how and/or in what way distinctions are made.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
> Joseph
>
> ----Message d'origine----
> De : loukau at gmail.com
> Date : 12/11/2023 - 17:16 (E)
> À : joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
> Cc : eric.werner at oarf.org, plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com, pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
> Objet : Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12 Human Wisdom vs Meta-Intelligence
>
> Of course what is meant by AI = ~AI is that there is a spiral process of development.
> I mean that whenever we have a system that can be surveyed by our intelligence, we stand to some degree outside of it and we ask new questions and obtain
> a new view of the present situation. This is part and parcel of the spiral process.
> If AI= ~AI is too condensed you can expand it to
> AI_{t+1} = ~ AI_{t}
> where t+1 is the next time and ~ means “not” but does not specify in what way a new distinction has been made between AI_{t} and AI_{t+1}.
> There is a reason for the condensation because it is a property of out intelligence that at any moment we proceed to the next moment and distinguish ourselves and
> our world from the previous moment. Thus Moment_{t+1} is different from Moment_{t} and yet it is also indistinguishable from Moment_{t} — that is the continuity of the
> mind. These properties are enmeshed with our presence in the world and the presence of our intelligence.
>
>
>> On Nov 10, 2023, at 9:04 AM, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Louis,
>> Thank you for your valiant attempt to move the discussion to another level. First with just you, what if we change the equation AI=non AI to a process? By this I mean that there is always some kind not of passive overlap between the two but an active interaction or co-instantiation?
>>
>> By doing this I re-cognize the existence of AI as a phenomenon without comittment as to its value. But I am aware that even this will not satisfy AI devotees.
>>
>> The "logic" of this form of reasoning may simply not fit into any category acceptable in East or West, but I keep trying!
>>
>> Best,
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> Envoyé avec l’application blue News & E-Mail
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 8 novembre 2023 à 08:46, Louis Kauffman < loukau at gmail.com <>> a écritDear Eric,
>> The boundary between our dreams and our actualities is vague.
>> We do not yet actually have AI.
>> And when we get it, it will not longer be artificial.
>> AI = ~ AI.
>> The present LLM’s are nowhere near doing creative mathematics.
>> It is not enough to mimic rationality to do creative mathematics.
>> When the rules are all given and a search space is specified,
>> then computers can look for and find mathematical proofs that humans would not find without them.
>> This has been done and it will be done spectacularly in the future.
>> This will be exciting but we (the mathematicians) are designers of these games.
>> We will always be happy to see the machines go forward into more and more possibilities.
>>
>> The key concepts here are comprescence and coalescence.
>> As we work with technologies we are no longer alongside them, we are coalesced with them.
>> I use my glasses by putting them on and becoming the world view that happens in SEEING THROUGH them.
>> And then “I” have lost “my” objectivity.
>> It was never mine.
>> Best,
>> Lou
>> P.S. Please note that I write in such a way that it is tempting to imagine arguing with my point of view.
>> But I do not have the point of view. You have the point of view. And when you argue with “me” you are arguing with yourself.
>> My intent is to write down points of view until they become absurd and turn into other points of view.
>> I trick you into participating, but you should know that I am doing this.
>> You trick me into responding.
>> Knowing will accelerate the process.
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2023, at 3:55 AM, Eric Werner < eric.werner at oarf.org <>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Lou,
>>>
>>> The boundary between rationality and hucksterism is vague. LLMs may mimic rationality enough to outperform most mathematicians. I think you are overemphasizing implementation over function when regarding LLMs. Two systems may exhibit functioning rationality yet have very different instantiations/implementations. So too with so many other mental states and processes.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> On 11/7/23 5:57 AM, Louis Kauffman wrote:
>>>> Dear Plamen,
>>>> You are hoping for AI language programs that can actually engage in reason.
>>>> They do not yet exist.
>>>> We do not yet have AI in this sense.
>>>> It is the right goal and it can come when there is a proper synthesis of the non-publicized formal system handling and theorem proving systems and the
>>>> language generation systems. The present language generation systems are producing language on the basis of most probable word generation from a big data base of human texts. This is not artificial intelligence, but it is being huckstered as such, alas. We can do better and we shall do better if the world survives.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 7:40 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com <>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Pedro, for this smart introduction of a new aspect.
>>>>> Particularly, I am convinced that we urgently need AI help, particularly in human patent and civil law with its plenty of subfields to achieve true justice.
>>>>> The current situation in many countries is that law courts are just stuck in cases and the many decision loops depend on an obsolete hierarchy and freedom of interpretation by smart lawyers and "lawmakers", i.e. parliament/congress representatives which does not often mean justice as the people at the basis understand it. In my view this is one of the reasons why modern societies degrade: the lack of operative justice.
>>>>> I know a German professor and inventor who tried to make an AI based patent law proof engine. But his invention got stuck in the need for unambiguous syntax and semantics of the law LLMs used to be given to the engine for binary processing. This "AI law machine" would be a great invention, but it would certainly make generations of lawyers and politicians unemployed, which I wholeheartedly welcome ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, coming back shortly to my former essay on AI "wisdom" today: I think that the best way to avoid and kill tyranny these day is perhaps to invent and switch on to a new "own" coded language and ignore all the narrative bombarding us with the globalists' transhumanist propaganda. So, we can leave them using the conventional English as they wish. So, the more people move to this new "Dumbledore" invented coded language, the less power the unelected tyrants will have on us. What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Plamen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:16 PM Pedro C. Marijuán < pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <>> wrote:
>>>>> Dear List, (I have just seen Plamen's; I could rephrase some of the below for the sake of the argument, but it would become too long. And about the server--Karl-- and also Marcus, yes something is happening, I cannot accede to it either. I will check).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, regarding the ongoing exchanges on Wisdom, I was reminded of the TURING TEST ( from wiki: if a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, it has demonstrated human intelligence). The test was applauded or seriously considered decades ago, but now it is just a bygone obsolete item. Any domestic AI system passes the test. In my case I disliked that test when I met it first time (late 70s). I considered it as a symbol of the very superficial "theorizing" in those new fields... so I changed gears and finally focused on "natural intelligence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding wisdom, we take it as a exclusively human quality, and seemingly binary. Either yes or no. Humans have wisdom, machines don't. But like in the case of intelligence, it probably is graded. For the "formal" intelligence, an IQ gradation was easily established time ago, not quite perfect, but it was very widely used everywhere. The, how an IQ of wisdom could be established? Really difficult... it is the ages old divergence between the analytical and the integrative, the reductionist versus the holistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> My take is that around Large Language Models a pretty small but noticeable enough portion of wisdom has been achieved, see for instance from the below quotation. I am lightly cooperating in the AI field "sentiment analysis", and have high hopes that it can contribute to an improved rationalization of human social emotions, the study of which is painfully in disarray ins Psycho and Sociology. No wonder the awful mental state of many people in a number of societies... There is a wonderful quotation from philosopher Ortega y Gasset about that (but unfortunately cannot locate it).
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best--Pedro
>>>>>
>>>>> Theory of Mind for Multi-Agent Collaboration via Large Language Models. From Huao Li et al. , at: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10701__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!R3oFHLKMSUzYlyxYNfexFqc-RFFVBpWExg0F_zcgyX2VjmVqtHhaJpZlyV6rAfutYYbax-jna1xeq6Ru$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10701__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WGQRbH1p47y_3QmXG5cnkavkcLaI6dQneyi1TygmW_kNa1lYM_Mf8gzFCzkD_vh6TMhRW5t-xmMIP2ud1gTy45FYyBUR$>
>>>>>
>>>>> "In this study, we assessed the ability of recent large language models (LLMs) to conduct embodied interactions in a team task. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based agents can handle complex multi-agent collaborative tasks at a level comparable with the state-of-the-art reinforcement learning algorithm. We also observed evidence of emergent collaborative behaviors and high-order Theory of Mind capabilities among LLM-based agents. These findings confirm the potential intelligence of LLMs in formal reasoning, world knowledge, situation modeling and social interactions. Furthermore, we discussed two systematic failures that limit the performance of LLM-based agents and proposed a prompt-engineering method that mitigates these failures by incorporating an explicit belief state about world knowledge into the model input."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 27/10/2023 a las 12:36, Eric Werner escribió:
>>>>>> Dear Yixin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you know from my different responses regarding Wisdom and Meta-AI (Artificial Wisdom) I am of a rather split opinion:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the one hand, the poetic emotional side of me sees the necessary inclusion of an ethics of fairness for all living creatures. I am skeptical, like you, that AI can achieve this consistently. I am worried about the ramifications of using AI systems in a military-governmental decision making process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, it may well come about that Meta-AI is possible. Such a system poses questions, creates new problems that it then solves. Such a Meta-AI system could rapidly explore different combinations of explicit and implicit theoretical assumptions. Leading to new theories about nature and the world. It could then propose new experiments that confirm or disconfirm its theory or hypotheses. It could see long range relationships, logical, mathematical in different specialized theories or mental frameworks. Meta-AI is one of the founding cornerstones of General AI. It presupposes that reasoning and not just parroting can be learned in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some more thoughts on Wisdom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Human wisdom is distributed and contradictory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AI models can contain all of human wisdom - including conflicting Wisdom
>>>>>> Conflicting Wisdom:
>>>>>> One societies Wisdom may be another societies doom
>>>>>> Realpolitik of human wisdom
>>>>>> As soon as limited resources, come in we get conflict
>>>>>> Imagine 10 people on the land that supports 10 people if they all share what they find among the other 10
>>>>>> If they are greedy, it reduces the population
>>>>>> It depends on if they really need 10 to find the food for 10. If five are sufficient to survive on the same land with less stress, then there’s a temptation to get rid of or disadvange the other five
>>>>>> Increase and search or intelligence algorithms whether a genetic or soft can lead to more resource findings
>>>>>> Sharing knowledge leads to greater distributed, productivity and more can join the community
>>>>>> The life and death struggle
>>>>>> Imagine another group of 10 comes in to the same area that supports only 10. Then we get conflict. They may cooperate but half have to die because of limited resources.
>>>>>> Same holds for university positions
>>>>>> Same holds for a limited resources in well-to-do societies versus less able societies
>>>>>> Taking advantage of one side's ability against the other
>>>>>> Power Creates Laws to Perpetuate Power
>>>>>> Speech is regulated, prevent thought and action that may lead to change of the status quo of power
>>>>>> Servants must be servile
>>>>>> Those in power must pretend to be generous to the extent that the servant does not rebel
>>>>>> The good master (wants to be seen as Wise, knowing what is good for the underlings)
>>>>>> The parasite must not kill its host, unless or until it can jump to another host
>>>>>> A parasite of a parasite leads to a hierarchy of parasites
>>>>>> Limited Resources Disturb the Ideal of Fairness and Absolute Wisdom
>>>>>> As soon as limited resources come into play the ideal no longer works
>>>>>> The group with more power in the given environment can win the resources
>>>>>> With limited resources, there can be no compromise after a certain point of sharing
>>>>>> Thus my ambivalence concerning Wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/25/23 2:12 PM, 钟义信 wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Eric,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There have many mysteries remained in wisdom. This is one of the reasons that the concept of AI does not involve wisdom and therefore AI is able to solve problem but is unable to define problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wisdom is creative in nature but AI is not. It is my belief that humans can build up AI but cannot build up AW (artificial wisdom).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wisdom can only be owned by humans but not by any machines. Do you think so? Please give comments on the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yixin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>> 该邮件从移动设备发送
>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231113/5e269c5e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list