Saturday, March 19, 2016

Truth and intelligence

There is a whole lot to say here, but let's just do a list of things to look at further, later.
  • I have been looking at Quora. It is more than interesting; as such, what is the appeal?
  • One thing that Quora does is allow questions to which people provide answers. There have been several themes that I noticed. One of these deals with IQ. For instance, people would ask whether the main rulers of the earth/world, at some future point, would have an IQ of 1000 or something or other. You see, numerics have warped our selves. 
  • In relation to queries like that one, people discuss Gardner's Multiple Intelligence proposal and such. Too, there are discussion about brain versus heart. For instances, one smarty was so because of an abusive environment. Later, the person realized, via a mentor, that such braininess is not properly balanced. BTW, Carl G. Jung is discussed, too. 
  • In short, IQ is one type of intelligence (see Gardner) for which there are tests. Some score highly where some means few. Most do not. Yet, a lot of these tests seem to have a common feel. So, one ought to be able to practice and score better, if one is able. But, the best of the tests are not timed. See this Quora answer for links. One test site: Dr. Jason Betts. That is nice, as it removes performance anxiety, silly dancing around, and competitiveness.  
  • Now, Jung was mentioned above. His thoughts about phenomenal issues that he addressed via Synchronicity are apropos to this discussion. In fact, Jung's work (or being reminded of such) gives me some hope for our future where the technologists would have run amok with their toys thereby, essentially, entrapping the rest of us (that is, human entanglement). But, much more on this.  
  • So, finally, to truth and intelligence. The truth bit, for me, comes down to truth engines and their application as supportive devices. Now, as I mentioned, technology seems to have run to where some brains (like Hawking) are bemoaning the end of the human race. Well, not. Those boys (for the most part, pale in face) will be reined in. Too, we need to have better human and machine cooperation.
  • You see, computation has holes in it. Despite the years of effort at error correction and the introduction of stability and a whole lot of other things, these holes are there; undecidability (in several senses) is a key issue. So, that theme will be addressed, time and again. 
  • But, intelligence? Yes, Google's system beat a Go player using what they term AI. Nice. Yet, not nice. However, this may very well be an example of technology being used without insight. We'll have to weigh in there. Though, I heard that Google has hired some philosophers in order to get it straight.
  • ... 
There will be much more to the topic. That is, though we have been at this for many years, we have just barely scratched the surface, so to speak.

Remarks: Modified: 03/19/2016

03/19/2016 --

Sunday, March 6, 2016

False beliefs

One thing that truth engines would deal with would be falsehood. That is, these two, true and false, relate even if we do not descend to the binary situation which we will not.

Why? Undecidability, namely. We will be getting to this.

Recently, someone on Quora asked: Do you believe the Earth is flat or in the shape of a sphere?  This is my answer. First of all, Euclid knew flat and round. So, we don't have to get to modern means to know this. However, we do. It wasn't until the 19th century that progress was made in non-Euclidean means.

In any case, we have to differentiate between the earth and the world. We know that the earth is semi-round. However, the world is flat. In fact, Hilbert's model that is the basis for mathematical physics, in part, is flat.

It's the use of "believe" that is interesting. We all believe. It's a type of closure and is necessary for effectiveness. But, there has been work related to "false beliefs" in studies related to the development of the mind. So, here are some points for later use.
Remarks: Modified: 03/06/2016

03/06/2016 --

Saturday, March 5, 2016


Or, we might say undecidable-ness. Quora has had some discussion of this topic, from the viewpoint of the Halting Problem as described by Turing. We have mentioned the issue, too. But, our use points to the larger picture (undecidable) related to mindless pursuit of all things computational. What gives here?

We'll be back discussing that, but here are pointers to items that look at technical details.
  • Undecidability Tangent - This video is Part 1 of 3. It starts with Euclid's geometry and the issue of parallel lines. Then, it goes into Russell's paradox. Finally, Turing's take. 
  • Undecidable Problems: A Sampler - This paper discusses how "undecidable decision problems" arise in mathematics. These are shown to be "at least as hard as the halting problem" which is the focus of computational logic. 
  • Undecidability everywhere - Bjorn Poonen's paranoiac view? No. 
Again, the rampant rush after automation seems to be short-sighted from several angles. How do we get this on the table for discussion?

Remarks: Modified: 08/08/2019

08/08/2019 -- Nash equilibria and hardness raises its head. We'll need logic as well as numerics.