One topic that often comes up is perception vs. measurements.
"If you can't measure it with common, existing measurements it isn't real."
This idea is and always will be flawed. Mind you, maybe what you perceive is not worth $1, but this is not how science works. I'm reminded of how many doctors and scientists fought against modernizing polio interventions, and how only recently did the treatment for stomach ulcers change radically due to the curiosity of a pair of forensic scientists.
Perception precedes measurement. In between perception and measurement is (always) transference to visual data. Lets take an example.
You are working on phone technology shortly after Bell invents the telephone. You hear one type of transducer sounds better than another. Why is that? Well, you have to figure out some way to see it (literally), via a scope, a charting pen, something that tells you in an objective way why they are different, that allows you to set a standard or goal and move towards it.
This person probably did not set out to measure all possible things. Maybe the first thing they decide to measure is distortion, or perhaps frequency response. After visualizing the raw data the scientist then has to decide what the units are, and how to express differences. Lets say it is distortion. In theory, there could have been a lot of different ways to measure distortion. Such as Vrms - Vrms (expected) /Hz. Depending on the engineer's need at the time, that might have been a perfectly valid way to measure the output.
But here's the issue. This may work for this engineer solving this time, and we may even add it to the cannon of common measurements, but we are by no means done.
So, when exactly are we done?? At 1? 2? 5? 30? The answer is we are not. There are several common measurements for speakers for instance which I believe should be done more by reviewers:
- Compression - Intermodulation ( IM ) Distortion - Distortion
and yet, we do not. IM distortion is kind of interesting because I had heard about it before from M&K's literature, but it reappeared for me in the blog of Roger Russel ( http://www.roger-russell.com ) formerly from McIntosh. I can't find the blog post, but apparently they used IM distortion measurements to compare the audibility of woofer changes quite successfully.
Here's a great example of a new measurement being used and attributed to a sonic characteristic. Imagine the before and after. Before using IM, maybe only distortion would have been used. They were of course measuring impedance and frequency response, and simple harmonic distortion, but Roger and his partner could hear something different not expressed in these measurements, so, they invent the use of it here. That invention is, in my mind, actual audio science.
The opposite of science would have been to say "frequency, impedance, and distortion" are the 3 characteristics which are audible, forever. Nelson pass working with the distortion profile, comparing the audible results and saying "this is an important feature" is also science. He's throwing out the normal distortion ratings and creating a whole new set of target behavior based on his experiments. Given the market acceptance of his very expensive products I'd say he's been damn good at this.
What is my point to all of this? Measurements in the consumer literature have become complacent. We've become far too willing to accept the limits of measurements from the 1980's and fail to develop new standard ways of testing. As a result of this we have devolved into camps who say that 1980's measures are all we need, those who eschew measurements and very little being done to show us new ways of looking at complex behaviors. Some areas where I believe measurements should be improved:
The effects of vibration on ss equipment
Capacitor technology
Interaction of linear amps with cables and speaker impedance.
We have become far too happy with this stale condition, and, for the consumers, science is dead.
"Can anyone name one GP doctor that got replaced by AI?"
I think he is talking about the future, not about what has already happened.
For whatever it is worth, pharmacies have already snatched some of the work from general practitioners. You could go to your local CVS and get immunizations and be treated for some minor illnesses. Immunizations are done by pharmacists, as far as I can understand. The rest are probably nurse practitioners, but I cannot back it up with written proof.
If you want a job that is still secure for probably one generation or maybe more, become a nurse. You will have many suitors in the western world. However, real nursing is not an easy job. Becoming a nurse and then switching to administration is a different story.
Dentistry? AI? Self driving cars (something mandated by the U.N., BTW! I wonder why?), Bootie awards?
i thought I’d actually find an adult conversation in here....
I was badly mistaken!
I was going to discuss my research into “imaging” among various phono cartridges, my findings, and hypothesis, and proof of concept. A subject that goes beyond normal measurements.
One thing not addressed often that is very fixable without spending lots of $$ is on poorly recorded digital recordings digititus, or high frequency noise do to compression or poor mastering of copies . If you own a Pc in many ways better then a player , for seperate components such as JPlay Femto usb card, land Jcat Net card after 200 hours a Big difference in musicality , land Mojo audio sells internal regulators thst hook up to your digital cards , and SS drives a very noticeable increase in added lower noise . A program Audiophile optimizer ,just look it up won Many awards making your digital sound much more analog and a linear power supply for your cards. This will cost you 2-3k if you want everything, a top LPS linesr power supply from The Best like Mojo Audio is just over $1k that you can get at a later date ,he also makes the best servers that run on A different Type operating system Lynex or something similar sounding .which is better then windows but a maxed program mojo sells is around $350.i May try it in the future. if you own a music pc then it’s worth your effort to check these out and I bought from Mojo Audio for dacs, usb cards he gives a 45 day audition period ,no one else came close to that.
And let’s not forget in these difficult and angst ridden times one way to extend the life of toilet paper is to separate the two plies. If everyone used their noodle there’d be no reason for all the hoarding. Not to mention the cardboard cylinders make excellent cable raisers. Nothing gets thrown away in this new reality and no AI required. I’m having so much fun I forgot to take my medications.
Many years ago, more than fifteen, I read an article in Stereophile. It was about analysis of songs that became hits or something like that. Music that became successful. If I remember correctly, and I really do not remember details, it was some computer program that analyzed music and found certain patterns in successful works. It turned out Norah Jones’ Come Away With Me album, out about that time, checked those boxes, too, despite not sounding anything similar to others if listened to it.
I am sure such things have developed way more since then and I am not 100% sure I got it all right, but the gist was that.
but its inherent problem is similar to what medical researchers call "evidence-based medicine," resulting in a backward-looking bias that precludes real innovation.
It's refreshing to realize that even with the advent of massive data analysis tools like HSS, the randomness of the marketplace still can't be controlled.
I think AI will complement human beings, not replacing. Like my example of brain scan, AI will help doctor better diagnose early sign of cancer, but the doctor will have the final say in the matter.
As I understand it AI is all about recognizing patterns and being able to learn from mistakes when provided with new information. Right away the advantages over humans should be obvious.
able to learn from mistakes when provided with new information
That's not the same as "creativity". Even if AI can learn, it can only learn within the confine of the given "algorithm". An AI that was programmed to do brain scan, can't learn how to cook since cooking was not part of the original program.
That's the main difference with AI and human. AI learning is not the same as human learning.
To understand something we need much more than intelligence....We need Imagination... How can we understand anything without the right concept pertaining to it?
For example mathematics vision just shift in the last 10 years from Occident to Asia, what it is? This mathematical vision is defined by only new concepts that were created in Asia coming from the west (Grothendieck)....
Charles Sanders Peirce pragmaticism maxime apply...Godel theorem also... We can only know if some new mathematical concepts are "true" , not in an absolute sense (Godel), but indirectly only by their potential generic power and all the actual and future consequences of these concepts (Peirce)...
Intelligence without the right concept is almost blind, tunneling vision at best....It is the creative Imagination the source of totally new concepts especially in mathematics (Cantor for example say that and Grothendieck after him) I will not go on connecting that with A. I. because my post will be erased.... Some people are not used to think, or think in a tunneling way.... :)
Ever since computers came out of the 1980’s there’ve been talks of computers replacing humans. I've heard the exact same things back then. It’s definitely been a very very long tunnel :-)
"Ever since computers came out of the 1980’s there’ve been talks of computers replacing humans."
I am not sure if it qualifies, but dictation services, I mean computer programs for dictation, have replaced a typist, or two. At least that is how it was twenty years ago. I do not know what the state of the art is nowadays. Maybe typists again.
A lot of time I would "mute" the youtube clip, and use the function "CC" for the subtitles, but I do notice there are quite a few errors. Maybe in realtime it's more difficult. Dictation services could afford to rewind or forward the clip so that may reduce the error rate.
Do you know of any court that has replaced human typist?
I couldn't sleep and decided to do some Audiogoning and found this thread, first statement by erik_squires I have to admit it is convoluted and cryptic initially but reading further turned interesting, will keep reading later, thank you Erik, good material.
This thread is an amazing one for me, for considerably greater reasons than the somewhat narrower field of hi-fidelity audio it began with.
May I first say that I truly appreciate the way you both think and process debate and argument - mahgister, and andy2 : ) - if you do not mind however, I would like to add to your already well-placed points, to say that it will not be possible to help heaudio123 understand the import of your arguments through the established points you have made so far.
You see, never mind all the advances that has been made with AI and everything else expected of it in the distant future, there is one thing, beyond imagination and inspiration, that separates human beings from every other living species, or intelligence, on earth. This is the ability to believe. Belief, and it’s lesser sibling of self-belief, is something beyond all understanding. In a world where the double helix has been reasonably well unravelled, where AI has taken over functions we could never have believed possible, where preventative measures for the avoidance of cancer is close, where human beings are able to survive for close to two continuous years in a steel tube called a submarine without needing to surface even once - the best minds on earth are no closer than they were a hundred years ago, to understanding the basis for what begins belief; how it becomes strong enough to give reason to keep living; how or why it evolves to create the wondrous built environment; and the circumstances under which it can suddenly collapse, to tragic consequences at times, or to remarkable beginning of even more powerful, new belief. This is truly what separates human existence from everything else. Mind you, this does not begin to touch on collective belief, which is another entirely profound discussion. So, never mind the fact that AI has not been able to replicate belief, the greatest human minds in the world have not even begun to marginally understand what it is, in relation to its mechanisms. This is something no robot, and certainly no AI will never be able to model, let alone replicate - not merely for the simple fact that the very definition of belief is that it CANNOT be replicated. So even if AI could replicate the conditions under which belief happens, evolves, changes, or ends, its very success will guarantee its failure. Belief is subject to nuance which cannot be predicted or anticipated.
And, if we can agree that self-belief is what drives the foundations of any invention, all original creativity, intelligence, and every moment of intangible human passion; then we could well say that AI in all its wonderful character and contribution, is woefully inadequate to even marginally dream of replacing any aspect of what matters most in human existence.
The truth of our human condition is that it is about change, evolution. And this moment of evolution is never scientific - a cell simply decides to break the rules to mutate - evolution is defined by accident, not methodology or preconception, the complete ‘science of known variables’ which I believe is what heaudio123 argues for. Never mind evolution, if too difficult to contemplate, the greatest experiences in our lives happen as result of the unexpected, of result of the accident. The most intelligent people on earth are the ones able to devise a life or work structure within which accidents can and must be allowed to happen, and be brought to awareness, for opportunity to be seen. it is impossible for every single variable surrounding even the smallest issue or ‘thing’ to be observed, collated, and factored for, in any ‘scientific’ method. This is the basic fact that governs ‘intuition’ - the ability to act in spite of not knowing every single fact - it is difficult to even grasp general facts about sound, impossible to fully comprehend the ridiculously complex act of hearing. So I do not think we are on entirely different sides of a raging river, to be able to understand that science and measurements only take us to a point, after which belief and intuition have to take over, often to hit and miss result, which is not a bad thing, since this structure itself has the unexpected built into it : )
i feel this is the crux of the discussion that has been running for five lovely pages now. And I love most that generally, every participant in the thread has been generally civil, and not too precious about themselves to still engage in some form of exchange. It is refreshing from so many other threads in audiogon that become personally insulting to individuals. Thanks so much for this : ) - kevin
That andy2 and mahgister and you kevin repeatedly describe it purely as algorithmic, i.e. the same data will always result in the exactly same answer to n-decimal places, clearly communicates that your knowledge of AI is rudimentary at best and hence you type long posts on an audio forum site repeatedly that are fundamentally wrong as opposed to seeking out the knowledge that you lack.
I dont know for Andy2, but you cannot presume at all of what I understand and what not sorry..... I post to you a conference by Naftaly Tishby, that is not for the lay man and describe neural networks mathematical workings then i never describe the algorithm of neural networks like you said I did in misrepresenting me.... Have you read my posts?
Our biggest advantage is we achieved enough intelligence to enable formal communication
By the way this affirmation is totally ingenuous to say the least....
Read Ernst Cassirer a true scientist and philosopher to understand why it is naïve and totally superficial affirmation....After that you will understand the difference in concept "creation" in neural networks and true concepts creation....
You "believe" you are right, and hence, as opposed to learning, you keep repeating the same mistakes.
You are polite and thanks for that... But you are also arrogantly patronizing us about knowledge without knowing to who you talks... :) I give you some hint when I gives you names like Naftaly Tishby or Grothendieck…. Do you even know the names?
heaudio123"The crux of the discussion kevn (and andy2 and mahgister to some degree) is that you have no concept of how AI works, or can work, or how it is or can be implemented."
Actually what you’re remarks display and reveal and I will not quote them all here is that it is you that is unkowledgeable, uninformed, and inexperienced with AI and I know this because one of my companies is among the most advanced in the world in AI research much of which exceeds my ability to fully understand, assess, and comprehend however I have an extraordinary team of engineers, mathemeticians, and physicists who are capable of explaining to me the basic, fundamental, core aspects of the science which is how I know you are just wrong. You can dismiss, reject, and disqualify outright any thing you want without providing any valid substantiation, proof, or reference however such is not science you are acting on "feeling", intuition, and "gut" which is fine of course for discussion but that will not withstand examination, study, and scrutiny by those actually working in the field of science.
Cassirer has been dead for 80 years. The things we know now, were not even conceptualized yet alone understood while he was alive.
Plato is dead for 2 millenias and is more advanced in many areas of knowledge than the main population including you... Try Archimedes and you will learn more than technology You will learn how to think by a man dead for 2 thousand years....Who gives a damn if he dont know how to train neural networks? He will learn that in less than one hour...Not a too complex mathematic...Grothendieck is a bit more difficult to chew try it...But you seems to idolizing technology...Not me... I prefer more sophisticated ideas and maths...
You keep getting hung up on (to me) neural networks as just another implementation of computing, with algorithmic repeatability, not as much as Andy2, but still guilty.
Still guilty? You are funny....
I even speaks about linking quantum computers to neural networks computers remember? And I speak about the differences between A.I. "creation" of concepts and the creation of concepts in human language...(various optimization mathematical methods for training neural networks are in no way an explanation for the intelligence of humans sorry)I does not advocate the superiority of human at all... My point is about human language.... My dog and any living system is conscious like you and me ...But language is a powerful tool to restructuring the brain individually and collectively...This is my point...
But in language the fundamental fact is the linkage between the motivated biological body and the gradually non motivated abstract symbolism and syntax... Then concepts creation in human is linked to an" in the world" and "out of the world "simultaneous process that is also a basis fact of language... The language is the basic and more fundamental TOOL there is ,and there will be, + scripture, his basic recreation.... It is the reason why I refer to Cassirer one of the more underestimated philosopher of science of this century...Read about him before trashing him for techological ignorance...
And, as far as I can tell, you start from the assumption humans are "special", or maybe biological creatures in general?,
Inform yourself and you will learn something about the social characteristic of living system (not human only and mainly except for language) and the consciousness of all living system....
Patronizing about neural networks, do you even have basic knowledge in linguistic?
Grothendieck expertise was mathematic (pure mainly), and frankly has no chops w.r.t. AI, and certainly not modern AI.
You dont even know that Grothendieck is one of the most profound thinker (yes in the last 2 centuries maths was NOT about simple calculus more about concept creations ) of the history of Maths...You think it will takes more than 5 minutes for him to learn optimizing maths behind neural networks? Grothendieck wrote thousand of pages about concept creations by the way....In french…. :)
We are all ignorant but I idolise knowledge.... I dont arrogantly push for technology against philosophy or spirituality, or worst against true mathematical science....Technology is not science....Only a small part of science.... Archimedes was a thinker with a method not a prehistorical Edison....
You can correct me about details of technology linked to dac, or amplifier, or any other tech artefact.... I bet you are engineer after all... But your general understanding is less than many here, because you are in a tunneling vision like any tech fad or specialist... Human thinking is a bit more vast and complex than you even imagine....The mathematics behind neural networks are in no way difficult and advanced... The neural network training is an advanced idea in technology yes.... Not the maths behind it...Then explaining the superiority of a neural network A. I. over human is the proof you dont understand anything more than the basic tech...
heaudio123"So you admit you don't understand AI, but, you had all those hundreds of engineers personally review this audio forum thread to determine the accuracy of my statements. You will excuse me if I don't believe you."
I do not care what you believe or feel I understand, recognize, and accept that you are driven by your emotions, you're "gut", or a voice inside of you but I am a scientist by nature and and an industrialist second and I never said my team has reviewed you're contributions hear that would waste they're time only that I know enough about AI to know that you are unaware of many of the basic, fundamental, core aspects of not only AI but in fact how science itself works and by extension scientists, mathematicians, and physicists who work in these fields professionally on a regular basis producing actual, valid, meaningful results.
If you have any complaint, dissatisfaction, or objections to my posts rather than engaging in attack against me hear I instead suggest, recommend, and encourage you to bring them to the attention of the moderators who control this group and with whom I have had an excellent relationship for many years.
No one is "pushing" technology, and certainly not against "true mathematical science" which is supposed to exactly mean what? You want the universe to be defined purely by mathematical equations (algorithmic), yet create a special category for human intelligence (not algorithmic), but can’t appear to make the leap that there is no limit w.r.t. artificial intelligence w.r.t. being algorithmic, and hence cannot be modelled by algorithmic mathematical means, but must be modelled, just like humans behaviour essentially, by statistical means, i.e. most likely outcome, but not guaranteed outcome.
Ok with this post you reveal you total lack of understanding in mathematics....
Mathematical thinking is not reducible to algorithm at all...Like human thought is not reducible to algorithm at all...Human has no SUPERIORITY at all over living being.... Living beings are superior to A. I. because they form only one universal grounded network in the universe...
Mathematics is about creating concepts... Algorithm is subsidiary to that creation and cannot replace it... For modern thought algorithm are all reducible in principle to Turing machines...The fact that quantum computers will do simultaneous calculi in some virtual quantum spaces does not nullify that...
Read that book about modern mathematical thinking and search in that where he speak about algorithm ….You will not find much about algorithm there you know why? Mathematics is not mainly about algorithm, or computer science, which are only some roads in this vast geography of concepts ….It is not a book for the mass by the way...I bet you will need more than hours to digest it.... :)
Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics ,Fernando Zalamea
Of course, back in the time of Archimedes, the bar was lower for knowledge creation.
You dont have a clue about Archimedes methods of thinking at all... You seem to think the guy is some prehistorical engineer who devise ballist arms and some levers projects.... He create calculus before Newton and Leibnitz.... It takes one thousand years of human history to catch with Archimedes use of infinity by the way.... read some books about him : Reviel Nietz
mahgister" you seems to idolizing technology...Not me... I prefer more sophisticated ideas and maths..."
You are trying to use reason, science, and math to argue with some one (heaudio) who relies instead on his inner feelings, "gut" instinct and intuition he "believes" that he is correct it originates, derives, and is rooted in his faith, conviction, and a form of religion and for that reason you will not convince him of his misunderstandings about the very basic, fundamental, central aspects of AI.
"
Mathematics is about creating concepts... Algorithm is subsidiary to that creation and cannot replace it..."
That is true but feelings and "gut" sense replace all for those who are so oriented, convinced, and "determined".
I am a bit stubborn myself, and he was too arrogant against anyone...I am a bit arrogant myself but I dont treat people less knowledgeable than me with the side of my hand.... I want him to know that all people here are not vulnerable prey to his "knowledge"...
To put it more simply mahgister, you have not put forth any arguments that suggest any insurmountable barriers to artificial intelligence achieving and being able to achieve anything humans can do w.r.t. intelligence or creativity.
Do you know the " halting problem" in computer science?
If yes...
Do you know the peculiarities of the primes distribution in number theory? It is impossible to reduce prime number theory to algorithmic theory of any kind....
If yes...
Do you know why organic intelligence and human in particular know how to extricate itself of a road without end? (Halting problem)
Because the organic intelligence is not algorithmic precisely but symbolic species....
Do you know the Euclid proof about the infinity of primes number?
Do you know that modern maths were inaugurated By Cantor about the creation of a new family of concepts linked to infinities...
No A. I will never create the concept of infinities, not even the concept of the actual set of prime numbers and the geometry of P- adic numbers for example....
You know why?
Because it is symbolic and not exclusively algorithmic concept....And without symbolic thinking the A. I. will be captive of a road without end...
If you want to know what is a symbolic form, read the 1000 pages of Ernst Cassirer...
a caricatural hint: Symbolic+algorythmic = symbolic form
It seems that Penrose intuition about Godel and maths is way over your head already and this is the more simple and simplistic way to approach the problem tough...Penrose is a real thinker not a "scientist" and he knows a little bit more maths than most....
I will give you a hint: algorithmic thinking is linked to symbolic thinking concepts creation and the 2 together exceed any possible A. I.
... read Zalamea + Cassirer...
In a word any A. I. is captive in his universe, living being are not.... An old problem humans call the "soul"...
By the way, you cannot put an argument to reach truth.... You cannot understand what is over your head with what you called an argumentation game....
IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE A CONCEPT BEFORE UNDERSTANDING ONE... This sound a bit paradoxical to you I bet? :)
You do not teach yourself mathematics with arguments.... You must develop symbolic perception and intuition.... maths is not reducible to rhetoric or logic even of the most algorithm sophisticated kind....maths is a symbolic form realm and a sea of concepts way more powerful than logic alone irreducible to any calculi...
You are assuming that AI is algorithmic and must follow the rules of a Turing machine. There is no such restriction.
«A quantum Turing machine (QTM) or universal quantum computer is an abstract machine used to model the effects of a quantum computer. It provides a simple model that captures all of the power of quantum computation—that is, any quantum algorithm can be expressed formally as a particular quantum Turing machine.« Wikipedia will suffice....Have you read the world ALGORITHM in this wiki citation?
Hint: read about Hilbert spaces and the corresponding Turing Tape....
The only difference between a regular Turing machine and a quantum Turing Machine is the number of bits, countable in classic T. machine or Uncountable in the Quantum Turing machine....The A. I. is more captive than ever in an uncountable realm without the symbolic connection that links all together the living organism and their universal uncountable memory...
The difference between bits and Qbits dont abolish the difference between calculus, be it quantum, and symbolic creation of concepts...
A. I. cannot understand infinities even if his power is linked to the quantum realm...
The quantum computer will not be able to know when to halt, or going on, no more than a normal Turing machine,....
To know when to halt we need a concept or more trivially a living body vulnerable to fatigue or boredom, all 3 things alien to an artificial machine .... We called that a living brain- body... :)
implying that AI must be algorithmic which I have repeatedly said is not the case and which you either
Go and correct Wikipedia and after that all quantum computer books....Qbits is part of algorithmic theory....Good luck with the correction... :)
It seems that it is you that dont understand what is algorithm theory.... Then understanding the concepts and symbolic creation is over your head...
hint: Dont reduce yourself to the level of maths in a machine.... Learn poetry, it will be a counter exercise to liberate your brain of the machine like programs that inhabit you....
I am not sure you understand the difference between an algorithmic result, i.e. 1+1 = 2, and a stochastic result, i.e. ~1 ~+ ~1 ~= ~2. Most adult will immediately get 1+1 = 2
Stochastic results or methods dont invalidate what I speak about when I speak about Turing Machine, quantum Turing machine, or A. I. in general which is neural networks Turing machine linked to quantum Turing machine... Stochastic methods are part of the algorithmic training of neural networks....
Why do you keep insisting an AI must be a touring machine and algorithmic?
Because I cannot correct all the books in the world to please you.... :)
…. it is plain for others to see that you dont know the general limits and power of the algorithmic concept.... You CANNOT understand even less the more complex symbolic concept creation that is way more powerful and over engineering thinking …. It is over your head now.... Sorry....
The argument that Cassirer life being some decade ago invalidate his thinking about symbolic process is ridiculous....A. I. is algorithmic in essence even at the quantum engineering level...
But there exist an "artificial soul" for machine.... But I doubt that I can explain this idea to you.... :)
Like I already said mathematics is not reducible to algorithmic theory of any kind, classical one or quantum one....
A.I. dont know anguish, love, hate, fatigue, boredom, sufferings, mystical experience, etc only living body knows and lives that...
Do you know why?
Because they inhabit already many worlds simultaneously, and inform themselves collectively...
The mathematics of that inter-universal communication exist also for only 10 years now. and has created a worldwide debate...Your level of understanding is not enough to understand even a page trust me....
This is not remotely a definition of AI, but it does miss completely potential impacts of quantum mechanics (i.e. randomness) as opposed to primary target outcomes of quantum computing which practically attempts to eliminate randomness (stochastic result) from the results (while also taking advantage).
Here you touch without knowing it something I cannot explain in few words.... The difference between real soul and artificial soul.... Suffice to say that quantum mechanics cannot explain spiritual phenomena at all.... Only some aspect of it....The transcendental aspect of living intelligence is not linked to randomness capabilities in the brain, artificial or natural one...The transcendental aspect of living intelligence is also a network but transcendent to any stochastic limited processing, being it neural network, or quantum network....The mathematics of this living intelligence network transcend all mathematics existing now in the past.... Except some maths in the last 10 years...
Try Shinichi Mochizuki, he is one of the greatest disciple of Alexander Grothendieck the greatest mathematician of this century except Ramanujan....this is the first glimpse in this new mathematic.... Like I said in one of my post here, the geopolitical shifting on planet earth is also a cultural shifting.... For one of the first time in the last 2 thousand years, the greatest mathematician on earth is officially an Asian, there is some others in the past ( Ramanujan) but many unknown to occidental culture.......
Again, I come back to you are assigning "special" qualities to living creatures for which there is no evidence must be unique and exclusive from artificial intelligence.
Read about biological nano machines and molecular biology.... Be astonished! Plato said that being astonished is the first step of thinking....He is right, the phenomena that would make someone astonished are almost so varied than the difference between human characters...Without astonishment I dont think that the thinking process go very far.... By definition machine cannot be astonish at all...
My first astonishment and the most profound one were poetic experience at 15 years old and number theory at 24 years old.... For Darwin it was animals and flora... Many examples were anywhere to read about....
« Astonishment is contemplation without end, it is the reason why I miss the stop sign» Groucho Marx
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
