ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence , consciousness , Edward Witten , Max Tegmark

Reply
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:48 AM   #281
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I don't know what you are on about, but my intentions are not hidden; and I've gone "as far" as to include a "What is the goal?" section in a github url in the new OP.

Intention pretty clear there.
Yes, both your stated intentions and your actual intentions have been made crystal clear.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 12:00 PM   #282
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474


Quote:
"In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it."

Last edited by halleyscomet; 3rd October 2017 at 12:01 PM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 12:02 PM   #283
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
My take on it is that he's saying that you can create estimates of probability using Bayesian statistics for separate abstract elements. Then you can combine the estimates to form a stronger prediction about the environment for a given intelligent agent. In Bayesian statistics a diffuse prior only provides vague predictions and therefore isn't very useful. His suggestion is that you can combine diffuse priors to make a much stronger prediction.

He seems to be trying to solve the problem of an intelligent agent acting within an environment without sufficient information about the environment. This is an ongoing problem with AI and machine learning. He seems to see this as a pattern matching problem which is why he refers to recurrent neural networks.

None of that is so bad, but after that it pretty much falls apart. He suggests that this mechanism would be useful for awareness and consciousness. He shows misunderstanding of focus and seems to believe the language of thought theory. For example, if you did try to use his structure for awareness you would fall into the Frame problem. Maybe he isn't aware of it. His notion about focus is ludicrous since it could give you a random, divergent, or convergent process. This is a common problem with bottom up approaches. To date there has been no supporting evidence for a language of thought other than that it goes along with computational theory.

That's my opinion about it. In other words, he might well be able to make a contribution to Bayesian statistics but I don't see this as advancing AI in the least.
Your opinion is off;

(1) It doesn't appear he is providing a framework to fully describe the structure for awareness; you may notice section 3, the consideration section where one quickly finds out that there is a suggestion (and no actual, detailed instruction) on how to try to build according to him, "a toy example" to describe the theory he presents.

(2) Based on (1), the remainder of your response describing how his paper "falls apart", is off.

The phrase toy example, especially in the context above, should show that the paper does not frame (nor intends to frame) any complete solution for awareness.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 12:05 PM   #284
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I don't know how your post above relates to the OP, but here are some useful links:

Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer:
https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/1...inding-cancer/


Self-taught artificial intelligence beats doctors at predicting heart attacks:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...-heart-attacks


Here are a sequence cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated artificial neural models exceed human-kind:

1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'otto-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go')
n) etc, etc


The Rise of the Machines – Why Automation is Different this Time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk

Will artificial intelligence take your job?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-wn8ghcoY

Humans need not apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo

And also, a cool xkcd:


Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 12:52 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 01:10 PM   #285
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That comic is an excellent example of how it's not possible for us to be living in a simulation. The fact that the protagonist literally needs an infinite universe isn't just a problem faced by a computer made of rocks and sand.

Either we don't live in a simulation, or computing works differently outside the Matrix

Quote:
But let's put those quibbles aside and dig into some physics, shall we? Theoretical physicists from Oxford just published Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity in Science Advances, in which they document the geometric complexity of computing the location of particles that make up the universe. It turns out that figuring out these particles' locations scales at order n-squared, meaning the amount of computing power needed doubles with each additional particle, which means that "storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe."
Then there's the data transfer problem.

halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 03:01 PM   #286
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Question ProgrammingGodJordan: Looks like an expanded incoherent document

Have you updated your document to remove the gibberish that is "Thought Curvature "?
  1. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  2. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  3. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  4. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  5. 16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature DeepMind bad scholarship (no citations) and some incoherence
  6. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature uetorch bad scholarship (no citations) and incoherence
  7. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature irrelevant "childhood neocortical framework" sentence and missing citation.
  8. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature "non-invariant fabric" gibberish.
  9. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature Partial paradox reduction gibberish and missing citations.
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Looks like an expanded incoherent document starting with title: "Thought Curvature: An underivative hypothesis""
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "An underivative hypothesis": A abstract of incoherent word salad linking to a PDF of worse gibberish.
Quote:
Some Markov receptive C∞π(Rnπ) , reasonably permits uniform symbols on the boundary of Rn, betwixt some Uα, of φi; particularly on some input space of form η . (See preliminary encoding).
The link is to an even worse "Supermanifold Hypothesis (via Deep Learning)" PDF with nonsensical abstract of
Quote:
If any homeomorphic transition in some neighbourhood in an euclidean space Rn yields ϕ(x,θ)Tw for wi, θ ϵ Rn, then reasonably, some homeomorphic transition sequence in some euclidean superspace C∞(Rn) yields ϕ(x,θ,θ)Tw for wi, θ ϵ Rn; θ ϵ some resultant map sequence over θ via ϕ, pertinently, abound some parametric oscillation paradigm, containing Zλ.[12]

Pertinently, Rn → form R0|n applies, on the horizon of the bosonic Riccati.[12]
Other than advertising your word & math salad PDFs, you seem to be
  • Going on about the trivial fact that babies learn and that their learning processes may be a model for AI learning.
  • Have a fantasy that the other posters are ignorant about programming and AI with posting of irrelevant tutorials.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2017 at 03:22 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 03:24 PM   #287
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
In summary, the new thread deals with:
Why should this thread deal with an image of what looks like mathematical gibberish?

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2017 at 03:25 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 04:07 PM   #288
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan : "Supermathematics ...": the first word in the title is a lie

Next is the PDF "Supermathematics and Artificial General Intelligence" which does have a coherent abstract:
Quote:
I clearly unravel how I came to invent the supermanifold hypothesis in deep learning, (a component in another description called 'thought curvature') in relation to quantum computation.
However:

4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": the first word in the title is a lie because supermathematics is not AI.
Quote:
Supermathematics is the branch of mathematical physics which applies the mathematics of Lie superalgebras to the behaviour of bosons and fermions.
The behavior of bosons and fermions are not machine learning .
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 04:17 PM   #289
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": Wrong "manifold learning frameworks

4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong.
There are no "manifold learning frameworks" in
Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training. There are 3 instances of the word manifold referring to the data. The frameworks are Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAE) which this paper combines.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 06:00 PM   #290
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong.

There are no "manifold learning frameworks" in

Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training. There are 3 instances of the word manifold referring to the data. The frameworks are Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAE) which this paper combines.


Thatís the problem with folks who get too used to bamboozling people with sciency-sounding gibberish. Eventually they come someplace like this and get their ass handed to them by people who see through them.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 06:30 PM   #291
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by halleyscomet
That’s the problem with folks who get too used to bamboozling people with sciency-sounding gibberish. Eventually they come someplace like this and get their ass handed to them by people who see through them.
@Halleyscomet, RealityCheck had already been shown to lack basic Machine Learning know how.

For example, RealityCheck demonstrated words, that indicated that he or she had not been aware of the basic fact, that deep learning models could include or exclude pooling, something the typical undergrad Machine Learning student would discover.

See the scenario here.

Here is a quick spoiler, saved just for this occasion:



Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan



PART A

It's time to escape that onset of self-denial Reality Check.

Okay, let us unravel your errors:

(1) Why did you lie and express that 'any point in a supermanifold...is never euclidean', despite contrasting scientific evidence?

(2) Why ignore that you hadn't known that deep learning models, could include or exclude pooling layers?

(3) From your blunder in (2) above, why ignore that atari q did not include pooling for pretty clear reinforcement learning reasons (as I had long expressed in my thought curvature paper)?

(4) Why continuously accuse me of supposedly expressing that 'all super-manifolds were locally euclidean' contrary to contrasting evidence? Why do my words "Supermanifold may encode as "essentially flat euclidean super space" fabric" translate strictly to "Supermanifolds are euclidean" to you?
(accusation source 1, accusation source 2, accusation source 3)





PART B

Why Reality Check was wrong (relating to question 1):


Why Reality Check was wrong, (relating to question 2 and 3):




Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Into the introduction and:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
You are demonstrably wrong, as you will see below.



Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Deepmind’s atari q architecture encompasses non-pooling convolutions
DeepMind is a "neural network that learns how to play video games in a fashion similar to that of humans". It can play several Atari games. It does not have an architecture related to those Atari games. What DeepMind does have is "a convolutional neural network, with a novel form of Q-learning".

What is the relevance of your line above?

Here is a more detailed, intuitive, mathematical description of mine, regarding deepmind's flavour of deep q learning (written in 2016):

https://www.quora.com/Artificial-Int...rdan-Bennett-9




Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I have found 1 Google DeepMind paper about the neural network architecture that explicitly includes pooling layers but not as an implemented architecture element, Exploiting Cyclic Symmetry in Convolutional Neural Networks.

What is missing in the PDF is any references for DeepMind.
(1)
My thought curvature paper is unavoidably valid, in expressing that deepmind did not use pooling layers in AtariQ model. (See (2) below).




(2)
Don't you know any machine learning?

Don't you know that convolutional layers can be in a model, without pooling layers?



WHY NO POOLING LAYERS (FOR THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO)?

In particular, for eg, pooling layers enable translation in-variance, such that object detection can occur, regardless of position in an image. This is why deepmind left it out; the model is quite sensitive to changes in embedding/entities' positions per frame, so the model can reinforce itself by Q-updating.


SOME RESOURCES TO HELP TO PURGE YOUR IGNORANCE:

(a) Deepmind's paper.

(b) If (a) is too abstruse, see this breakdown, why atari q left out pooling layers. (A clear, similar explanation similar to the 'WHY NO POOLING LAYERS (FOR THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO)?' section above, or as is long written in thought curvature paper)




FOOTNOTE:
It is no surprise that deepmind used pooling in another framework. Pooling layers are used in deep learning all the time, and convolutions can either include, or exclude pooling. (Deep learning basics)


Why Reality Check was wrong (relating to question 4):


Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No where had I supposedly stated that "all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean".

In fact, my earlier post (which preceded your accusation above) clearly expressed that "Supermanifold may encode as 'essentially flat euclidean super space' fabric".

No where above expresses that all supermanifolds were locally euclidean. Why bother to lie?




Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 07:27 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 06:37 PM   #292
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong.
There are no "manifold learning frameworks" in
Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training. There are 3 instances of the word manifold referring to the data. The frameworks are Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAE) which this paper combines.
What are you on about above?

Are you disagreeing with my prior statement that disentangling factors aligns with manifold learning?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 06:46 PM   #293
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Next is the PDF "Supermathematics and Artificial General Intelligence" which does have a coherent abstract:

However:

4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": the first word in the title is a lie because supermathematics is not AI.

The behavior of bosons and fermions are not machine learning .
For reality's sake, please look at the thought curvature paper, for more than 5 minutes.

You will notice a source in that paper, concerning Super Symmetry at brain scale.

That has something to do with something called the bosonic riccati.

I explain the details in a github document here (See item 2).

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 06:47 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 07:16 PM   #294
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Why should this thread deal with an image of what looks like mathematical gibberish?


Thought Curvature doesn't appear to be "mathematical gibberish" to apparently smart people from other places on the web.

Examples:

(1) Discussion on science forum:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/1...-intelligence/

The conversations in the science forum above, lead to another conversation with a user that had participated in the aforesaid conversation.
Warning the following image is quite large:



(2) Discussion on physics overflow:
https://www.physicsoverflow.org/3960...le-hamiltonian


etc

What is it that you don't understand?

Why do you garner your words, (demonstrating lack of understanding) necessitates that thought curvature is suddenly supposedly "gibberish"?

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 07:30 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:03 PM   #295
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Question ProgrammingGodJordan: Quote the cited description of manifold learning frameworks

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
What are you on about above?
An inability to understand what you read or maybe even write !
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks[[/b]

But just in case:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Quote the description of manifold learning frameworks in the paper you cited.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2017 at 08:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:07 PM   #296
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan: Does not understand the idiocy of treating AI as bosons/fermion

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
For reality's sake...
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Does not understand the idiocy of treating AI as bosons or fermions!
AI are not fundamental particles.
AI do not have integer or half integer spin.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:25 PM   #297
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Exclamation ProgrammingGodJordan: Links to people basically ignoring him

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Thought Curvature doesn't appear to be "mathematical gibberish" to apparently smart people from other places on the web.
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Rather ignorantly links to people basically ignoring him!
A couple of thread on other forums with a handful of posts or comments.

Mordred for example suggests that you need to study to make any progress.

In the other forum you admit that you do not have a college level of education or training in physics (and thus the required math skills).
Quote:
Unfortunately, my knowledge is very limited, as I lack at minimum a Bachelors physics degree, or any training in physics, so the method outlined in the super Hamiltonian paper above, was the easiest entry point I could garner of based on evidence observed thus far.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:28 PM   #298
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
"Thought Curvature" is gibberish and ignorant because it is incoherent and makes ignorant statements:
  1. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  2. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  3. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  4. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  5. 16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature DeepMind bad scholarship (no citations) and some incoherence
  6. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature uetorch bad scholarship (no citations) and incoherence
  7. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature irrelevant "childhood neocortical framework" sentence and missing citation.
  8. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature "non-invariant fabric" gibberish.
  9. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature Partial paradox reduction gibberish and missing citations.
  10. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Looks like an expanded incoherent document starting with title: "Thought Curvature: An underivative hypothesis"
  11. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "An underivative hypothesis": An abstract of incoherent word salad linking to a PDF of worse gibberish.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2017 at 08:30 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:29 PM   #299
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Rather ignorantly links to people basically ignoring him!
A couple of thread on other forums with a handful of posts or comments.

Mordred for example suggests that you need to study to make any progress.
Of what relevance is this to the OP?

As I mentioned in reply 194, Mordred also went on in personal inbox, to answer some questions that helped to lead to thought curvature's current form.


Originally Posted by RealityCheck
In the other forum you admit that you do not have a college level of education or training in physics (and thus the required math skills)
Yes, I did. (Recall that it is I that linked you to said forum?)
However, this does not suddenly instantiate that thought curvature is "mathematical gibberish" as you would like to incite.
See the same forum once more.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 08:41 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:35 PM   #300
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Of what relevance is this to the OP?
Your post is not the OP nor is reply 191.
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Rather ignorantly links to people basically ignoring him!

But you did list Mordred's messages to you so:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
Mordred describes a tiny bit of the mathematics and physics of QFT. Mordred ignores your work. Mordred mentions one of your citations favorably. He does not mention that this is a year and a half old preprint with no sign of publication. But it is clear that quantum computing should give advantages over classical computing in AI.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2017 at 08:55 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:42 PM   #301
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That was updated to 194.

Also:


Whether or not you classify Mordred's participation as "ignorance" of my queries, is irrelevant, as Mordred participated in a detailed manner, contrary to your claim, as is observable in the image above.

Mordred's participation assisted me to compose thought curvature's current form.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:45 PM   #302
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Have you updated your document to remove the gibberish that is "Thought Curvature "?


Other than advertising your word & math salad PDFs, you seem to be
  • Going on about the trivial fact that babies learn and that their learning processes may be a model for AI learning.
  • Have a fantasy that the other posters are ignorant about programming and AI with posting of irrelevant tutorials.
That babies learn (in relation to machine learning) is not a "trivial fact", and forms crucial studies w.r.t. the hard problem of constructing artificial general intelligence, unbeknownst to you.
When will you learn to produce sensible feedback?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:55 PM   #303
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An inability to understand what you read or maybe even write !
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks[[/b]

But just in case:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Quote the description of manifold learning frameworks in the paper you cited.

Smh.
How do you manage to contradict yourself so often?

"Your initial words: 'manifold learning frameworks' link is wrong.
There are no 'manifold learning frameworks' in
Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training."

Then right after that, in the same response you mention:

Your following words: "There are 3 instances of the word manifold referring to the data."

These are telling signs that you lack machine learning know how.
What is it you think the learning algorithm is doing, with that manifold aligned data?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 08:58 PM   #304
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your post is not the OP nor is reply 191.
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Rather ignorantly links to people basically ignoring him!

But you did list Mordred's messages to you so:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
Mordred describes a tiny bit of the mathematics and physics of QFT. Mordred ignores your work. Mordred mentions one of your citations favorably. He does not mention that this is a year and a half old preprint with no sign of publication. But it is clear that quantum computing should give advantages over classical computing in AI.
You do recognize QFT relates non-trivially with my work?

So How could Mordred be ignoring my work, while at the same time discussing QFT (which is quite pertinent to my work)?

You do see the irony in that don't you?

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 09:12 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:02 PM   #305
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan: A I stated manifold learning frameworks is in the paper lie

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Smh....
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks[[/b]

4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Quote the description of manifold learning frameworks in the paper you cited.

And now:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: It is a lie that I stated that manifold learning frameworks is in the paper.
This is what I wrote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong.
There are no "manifold learning frameworks" in
Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training. There are 3 instances of the word manifold referring to the data. The frameworks are Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAE) which this paper combines.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:08 PM   #306
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
...snipped insults....
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
The only reference to your work is a citation. Stated lack of education and the Thought Curvature gibberish means that it is a fantasy that you are using QFT.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:10 PM   #307
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I can't do much more than the response here.

You will have to sort out your errors yourself.

RealityCheck, based on your prior blunders, the following may prove helpful for you:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Please consider:

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBxCHonP6Ro (clear programming tutorials)

(2) https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning (good machine learning tutorial)

(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79pmNdyxEGo (very good youtube deep q learning tutorial)


Footnote:

If anyone else has anything sensible feedback, please observe this conversation here, regarding thought curvature, as a helpful premise.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:11 PM   #308
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
The only reference to your work is a citation. Stated lack of education and the Thought Curvature gibberish means that it is a fantasy that you are using QFT.
Please see reply 204.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 09:20 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:14 PM   #309
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,305
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I can't do much more than the response here.
So you cannot answer a simple question?
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Quote the description of manifold learning frameworks in the paper you cited.
Then we are left with
  1. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  2. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  3. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  4. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  5. 16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature DeepMind bad scholarship (no citations) and some incoherence
  6. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature uetorch bad scholarship (no citations) and incoherence
  7. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature irrelevant "childhood neocortical framework" sentence and missing citation.
  8. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature "non-invariant fabric" gibberish.
  9. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature Partial paradox reduction gibberish and missing citations.
  10. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Looks like an expanded incoherent document starting with title: "Thought Curvature: An underivative hypothesis"
  11. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "An underivative hypothesis": An abstract of incoherent word salad linking to a PDF of worse gibberish.
  12. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks
  13. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Rather ignorantly links to people basically ignoring him in 2 forum threads!
  14. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: It is a lie that I stated that manifold learning frameworks is in the paper.
and:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2017 at 09:18 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:18 PM   #310
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Read the following quote, very very slowly (take a few days, if need be):

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
What is it you think the learning algorithm is doing, with that manifold aligned data?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 09:20 PM   #311
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So you cannot answer a simple question?
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Quote the description of manifold learning frameworks in the paper you cited.
Then we are left with
  1. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  2. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  3. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  4. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  5. 16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature DeepMind bad scholarship (no citations) and some incoherence
  6. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature uetorch bad scholarship (no citations) and incoherence
  7. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature irrelevant "childhood neocortical framework" sentence and missing citation.
  8. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature "non-invariant fabric" gibberish.
  9. 18 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature Partial paradox reduction gibberish and missing citations.
  10. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Looks like an expanded incoherent document starting with title: "Thought Curvature: An underivative hypothesis"
  11. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "An underivative hypothesis": An abstract of incoherent word salad linking to a PDF of worse gibberish.
  12. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks
  13. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Rather ignorantly links to people basically ignoring him in 2 forum threads!
  14. 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: It is a lie that I stated that manifold learning frameworks is in the paper.
and:
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!



Your words constantly ironically display ignorance.

QFT is non trivially related to my work. (See this extra list here in relation to "thought curvature" compiled by myself, constituting some QFT stuff)

So how exactly does Mordred supposedly mostly ignore my work, by discussing QFT?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 10:55 PM   #312
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,783
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
........QFT is non trivially related to my work..........
Comprehension fail. Non trivial comprehension fail betwixt gibberish. Take a few days to read the following:

The claim wasn't that you ignore lists to do with your work, it was that you quoted someone but ignored their work. I assume this is because it doesn't agree with whatever theory you're blathering on about now.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 10:59 PM   #313
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Comprehension fail. Non trivial comprehension fail betwixt gibberish. Take a few days to read the following:

The claim wasn't that you ignore lists to do with your work, it was that you quoted someone but ignored their work. I assume this is because it doesn't agree with whatever theory you're blathering on about now.


I am unable to parse your response above.

Would you care to try again, in a cohesive manner?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:15 PM   #314
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,783
No, it reads perfectly well, as you well know.

By "cohesive", did you actually mean something like "comprehensible"? Because cohesive is just the wrong word.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 3rd October 2017 at 11:17 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:20 PM   #315
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No, it reads perfectly well, as you well know.

By "cohesive", did you actually mean something like "comprehensible"? Because cohesive is just the wrong word.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for breach of rule 0 and rule 10.

Last edited by Agatha; 4th October 2017 at 06:44 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:34 PM   #316
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
@RealityCheck

Also, why not pursue Artificial Intelligence if possible?

(1) Suzanne Gildert left Dwave Quantum Computer Company to start her on Artificial Intelligence Lab: https://youtu.be/JBWc09b6LnM?t=1303





(2) As another example, Max Tegmark expressed that physicists had long neglected to define the observer in much of the equations. (The observer being the intelligent agent - https://youtu.be/jXBfXNW6Bxo?t=1977 )

Now Tegmark is doing AI work: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225


Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd October 2017 at 11:41 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 06:49 AM   #317
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
@Halleyscomet, RealityCheck had already been shown to lack basic Machine Learning know how.
I can see why your ideas have no traction in the larger scientific communities. You respond to criticism of your claims with accusations of the other person lacking understanding. You respond not with a coherent rebuttal, but insults. With such an attitude the quality of your ideas is meaningless, as you are actively discouraging people from considering them. It's akin to a chef cooking a steak, then covering it with spittle. Nobody is going to eat it and, as a result, nobody will be able to judge the quality of the steak or its preparation.

You are your own worst enemy and have gone to great lengths to sabotage yourself. It's sad really. If you have any good ideas they'll be ignored until a more competent communicator reinvents them, or palatalizes them from you.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I wonder if there are any mathematicians or AI researchers in this thread who are not above a bit of academic plagiarism. I certainly hope there are not.

Last edited by halleyscomet; 4th October 2017 at 07:27 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 07:31 AM   #318
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No, it reads perfectly well, as you well know.

By "cohesive", did you actually mean something like "comprehensible"? Because cohesive is just the wrong word.
Why bother with more irrelevant word discussions?

Didn't you know that to be cohesive, may be to be coherent?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 07:54 AM   #319
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Why bother with more irrelevant word discussions?

Didn't you know that to be cohesive, may be to be coherent?
Dude, you used the wrong word. Stop embarrassing yourself by looking for a loophole. Everyone uses the wrong word now and then. Accept the criticism and move on.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 07:54 AM   #320
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I can see why your ideas have no traction in the larger scientific communities. You respond to criticism of your claims with accusations of the other person lacking understanding. You respond not with a coherent rebuttal, but insults. With such an attitude the quality of your ideas is meaningless, as you are actively discouraging people from considering them. It's akin to a chef cooking a steak, then covering it with spittle. Nobody is going to eat it and, as a result, nobody will be able to judge the quality of the steak or its preparation.

You are your own worst enemy and have gone to great lengths to sabotage yourself. It's sad really. If you have any good ideas they'll be ignored until a more competent communicator reinvents them, or palatalizes them from you.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I wonder if there are any mathematicians or AI researchers in this thread who are not above a bit of academic plagiarism. I certainly hope there are not.
(1) I had not accused him or her of any such thing, her/his blunder is clearly observable, whether or not I exist to point out such blunder. (See here)

(2) Although I know of recent single author papers that are gaining traction, even without detailed results let alone some substantive ways on how to implement the things proposed in those papers, (an example is this paper by Bengio, one of the pioneers of Deep Learning)

... although thought curvature does more to provide ways to perform experiments, unlike papers like Bengio's above, there is still a lot of work to be done until I can submit the papers to strong journals.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.