Watching the Construction of a New Wing by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Jeff,

Lovely essay, with much sense, I do like your direct readable writing style. I also broadly agree your 'threshold' definition of intelligence and described almost the same thing, with imaginary scenario's, responses and 'feedback loops' informing decisions.

You also point out some very pertinent facts; "There are many wrong physical models that work perfectly well mathematically" and; "a toaster oven with a goal and the ability to change could be intelligent." (as the toaster in the UK TV series Red Dwarf', which also consistently reverts to it's primary goal!)

Regarding; "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle Is a known unknown, a limit to our knowledge of a particle" So true, but you may have seen I do identify a valid classical derivation of that probability distribution! Of course that may not pass the cognitive dissonance test for some years (the 1st part of the essay shows why) but nobody has yet falsified it as it's a self apparent (if initially seeming complex) mechanism.

I'm sorry my essay is (again!) so dense, but I had a lot to get in to support the compound hypothesis. Yes it does need 2 reads. I find most good essays and papers do, though I do invariably 'speed read' first to decide if it's worthwhile. Yours was an exception, clear and spot on, so I slowed down and just read it once.

I see you've been trolled. Mine has just received it's 11th '1', just after it went up a couple of places! Rest assured your score from me will be a deserved good one to compensate, in fact going on now. There's some discussion on the admin blog as trolling can be easily eliminated.

I do hope your second read of mine will reveal the often subtle connections of how quantum interactions DO contain adequate information and options to drive a multi choice multi layer 'yes/no switch' feedback and decision system, even with a 'random' mutation mechanism!

Very best

Peter

Hi Jeff

I found your idea of mistakes being mandatory for something to be identified as intelligent quite fascinating. It is true that I have allowed for mistakes (flaws) in my own modeling of intelligence, but that was incidental, and I had not thought about it as explicitly as you have.

It is also interesting that you state that supercomputers might not be intelligent but the average toaster might be considered as intelligent. I am not sure but it is possible that the difference between the two might come down to their capability to self-regulate. Toasters can but supercomputers can't. The biological mechanisms that you identified as being intelligent can also self-regulate. You correctly state that scientific method is 'part' of an intelligent system without being intelligent itself.

I liked your style of writing and wish you had written more on the subject. Nevertheless, I think this essay is way better than the average essay (I am rating it accordingly) because of your clear thought regarding mistakes being necessary for a system to be considered as intelligent.

Regards, Willy

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for coming back to my essay! And thanks for your critique. I'll think about that. It's difficult to know essay ranking dynamics, complicated by the trolls who deal out '1's for who knows what reason. Anyway I read your essay with your request in mind. It's difficult to say. You write well. Your info is generally understandable. One commenter above asks what is 'small' -- quantum? You answered "that is too small and I should have said that." I agree. Your first sentence says "start small" to understand the universe, and your last sentence keeps to that theme, so it's relevant to define 'small' in this sense.

I like that you say "an intelligent system will make mistakes." If it lacks mistakes, it is doubtful it is an intelligent system. I do not recall seeing that stated elsewhere, and it is an interesting point. It appears original so I think you could've expanded on this more than you did. For example, "no mistakes" seems to imply deterministic, whereas learning behaviors provide adaptability, but sometimes fail or sometimes learn the wrong thing. You do discuss some of this with respect to mutation. You might discuss 'mistake' versus 'error'. The goal oriented system will not work without an error signal. The error signal provides the information needed to steer towards the goal.

I was also confused by your use of "intelligent". Your first sentence in your abstract says "intelligent creates ideas" and "finds order in chaos". On page 2 you define the necessary features. Then you discuss a supercomputer versus toaster. And the intelligence of a tree. I think this could of been expanded on or clarified in some way.

Jeff, the only thing I can think of to help with future essays [since you asked] would be to use headers to break the flow. You have so many ideas, one after the other, and they are not simple ideas. It is difficult to see where things are going as one reads through the essay. It sounds trite, but I know you've seen long comments on the web, followed by a comment to the effect that "paragraphs are your friend". The use of headers or interior titles both helps the reader focus on the theme being discussed next, but it also helps my writing as it tells me what to focus on to convey in that section. (Sometimes the header changes after I have written the section.) Sometime I write without headers, then I come back and insert them and this may cause me to re-write the section. That's about the only helpful advice I could find. Just think of it as an outline to organize the flow -- for yourself and your readers.

Thanks again for coming back to my essay. I always find the second reading gives me a better appreciation of complex essays, and these FQXi essays are complex.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Jeffrey

Thanks for your comments on "Traveler & Terrain...." Curious as to what statements you would have left out.

I read your paper and found it a comfortable ramble through familiar territory. I judge that you will have to budget your time to allow for your persistent curiosity in things large and small. I recognize the condition quite well - looking for deep meaning in any little oddment of experience. I don't know if there is a cure, but we seem to be in good company.

Regards,

Don

sproutsradio@gmail.com

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz,

Thank you for giving comments even in the last of the time...

Thank you for you nice words. Dont worry about rating the essay. As the time getting over, one can not read and understand any more new ideas, mind will get saturated....

What I request will me, you take time and visit again read this coolly and we can discuss with each other. Please correspond with me on the id...

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Best regards

=snp

Hello Jeff,

I enjoyed your essay, and I went through it twice so I could be sure to grasp your intended meaning. I think you would greatly enjoy the book "Turbulent Mirror" by Briggs and Peat, which fleshes out some of what you left unsaid very nicely, and follows a similar theme. My main interest in that book is its focus on what I call the far shore of chaos. In my formulation, the presence of randomness comes from the accumulation of too much order in dissimilar patterns, which forces irregularity or roughness to appear, where the patterns are in conflict.

So in effect; chaos emerges from order. But on the other side of randomness, things become orderly again, so that there are regimes of order within chaos, if things are allowed to vary continuously. According to Noether, observed conservation laws are equivalent to symmetries, so the study of symmetry is very prominent in Physics. But as you say; entropy prevails given enough time and space to have its action, so this suggests the universe as a whole is asymmetric when considering its progression over time.

In terms of the patterning of the octonions, building of order is stage 4, the onset and increase of chaos is stage 5, and the far shore of chaos is stage 6 phenomenology. But this interplay is easily observed in the Mandelbrot Set, if we home in on any of its branching Misiurewicz points. A theorem of Tan Lei states that the symmetry becomes more and more exact the farther we zoom in, but the reverse is also true - where the structures bounding any Misiurewicz point are asymmetrical, reflecting the global asymmetry of M. So we see an interplay between exact local symmetries and global asymmetry - just like the universe.

I believe in everything you say Jeff, but I see much of the pattern and phenomenology as arising from pure Mathematics.

All the Best,

Jonathan

By the way..

Thanu Padmanabhan's recent book on gravitation focuses in on the interplay between local order and global entropy as significant to understanding what gravity is. He devotes a whole chapter to Thermodynamic formulations of Gravity, and weaves the subject in several other places in the book. Paddy's view is that this compels us to view Gravity as quantum mechanical. That is; the global progression of entropy forces us to consider Quantum Gravity as essential.

You can find a PDF to download if you search for "Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers"

All the Best,

Jonathan

One more thought..

While Gödel's proof limits the facts we can derive from any formal system, it does not limit in any way what we can do with discovered knowledge. Hilbert and Whitehead both gave up on their attempts to unify Math, because of Gödel's proof, but we did not have detailed maps of figures like E8 and the Mandelbrot Set. I think that if these discoveries had come earlier, what we can know despite the limitations would have been more apparent, and they never would have been forced to admit defeat.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thanks for the thoughtful consideration..

Regards, JJD