From: pdugan (pdugan@vt.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 05:06:29 MST
I'd like to make three points here:
First, I hope everyone appreciates the irony of having a William Blake
quote end Geddes' e-mail. Blake was regarded as a madman in his day and led a
very active fantasy, often to the chagrin of his wife and contemporaries.
Blake was philosophical and aesthetic genuis, by the way, though I can't say
what his 'g' value was, nor can I gauge how good of an AGI researcher he would
make. Its possible that his poetry has had a positive effect on the odds of a
safe singularity, but that can be measured as a rough probability.
Second, I think theres a strong current of intellectual bravado running
through this list that, when lacking an appropriate abstract punching bag,
often gets turned on individual list members, by individual list members.
There was a ripple of it when Loosemore joined, and it seems to be
consistently leveled against Geddes when he posts. The objective isn't for one
person's ideas to "cream-pie" the others, or for us to make intellectual
comparisons, the objective is, at the least, that we and our children will be
able to survive a few decades from now. We're in this together, and for that
reason perhaps the list should be more open to right-brained, intuitive
suggestions, even if adequete explanation cannot be provided. Unexplainable
notions are not nessecarily worse than useless, if Einstien hit on relativity
by intuition, it isn't impossible that some other individual, otherwise
disregarded and disorganized, might just hit on some clue to quantum gravity
or a unified theory.
Thirdly, as the resident game designer on this list, I'd like to bring the
perspective to the table that elegant and robust systems don't just have
useful scientific value, they can also have artistic value, and it just might
be art that makes the difference between a Prevail scenario and a Shriek. In
this capacity Geddes stabs at a TOE, though sometimes overwritten and not
terribly elegant, are nice food for thought. My suggestion on the matter of
pondering potential TOE's, is that Occam's Razor probably won't apply to the
entirety of reality, but it's certianly nice to shave your thinking with it
occasionally, to keep it fresh and presentable. Big, complex, mathematical
constructs like string theory seem to be less useful to physics than
paradigmatic shifts such as the idea of timeless physics, which has an
elegance potentially applicable to approaching a theory of quantum gravity.
Nevertheless, I think string theory will provide useful lessons regarding
massively parrallel computing, and on a lesser scale Geddes' TOE v.06-3.57
provides some intersting ideas reflecting on game design. Come to think of it,
CEV falls into the same camp... hmmmm.
Judge not lest ye be horribly maligned in existential disaster.
Regards, Patrick Dugan
>===== Original Message From Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes@yahoo.com.au> =====
>>One of the reasons Marc Geddes is still on this list
>is that I >am reluctant to kick off a resident
>crackpot who at least knows >how to spell and is more
>or less polite.
>
>I'm not 'resident' here. As to 'crackpot' I admitted
>most of my off the cuff ideas were complete shit.
>Listen, you and Wilson are sitting there all day
>working on this stuff, with loads of cash and
>resources. I ain't got any money or resources and was
>only looking into it as a fun hobby in my spare time.
>It's hardly surprising I was only able to come up with
>shit.
>
>The moral of my 'puzle game' story was that the
>under-dog can sometimes whip the arses of the
>so-called 'geniuses'. Pride comes before a fall.
>
>
>>If I remove Marc Geddes, then someone *else* will
>stand out as the most disagreeable person - should I
>remove them too? While Marc Geddes stays on the list,
>other people will feel that much more comfortable
>about disagreeing - there's an example to follow,
>someone who dared to disagree, who is in fact clearly
>an idiot, yet was not struck down for his sins
>
>Cleary an 'idiot' huh? AS I told you, I haven't even
>looked properly into this AGI stuff yet, yet to lack
>of resources. But even so, if I get my 'bottom line'
>initial assertions correct, you're the one that's
>going to end up getting cream pied.
>
>I don't know what your problem is. I started by
>posting a few fun ideas towards a 'theory of
>everything' and you seemed to go nuts, telling me I'd
>'snapped completely'. I continued tossing out ideas.
>Since no one was listening here, I eventually posted a
>fun summary of these initial ideas on the Extropy
>list. I was then informed by you, completely
>gratuitiously, that I was of 'sub-human intelligence'.
> What's the problem? Worried I'm right?
>
>It's easy to demonstrate, that in fact, at many
>regions in the multiverse, I'm smarter than you.
>
>For instance I think I pointed out on wta-talk that
>*cross-time* comparisons could be performed - i.e
>between my future post-human self and your current
>self. Then I'm sure the uplifted (posthuman) Geddes
>could beat the current Yudkowsky.
>
>Alternatively, simply perform another *cross-time*
>comparison between my *current* self and your *past*
>self. i.e Compare Geddes now with Yudkowsky at say 5
>years of age. I'm sure the current Geddes could beat
>the 5 year old Yudkowsky.
>
>
>
>
>
>To see a World in a grain of sand,
>And Heaven in a wild flower,
>Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
>And Eternity in an hour.
>-William Blake
>
>Please visit my web-site:
>http://www.riemannai.org/
>Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Never miss an Instant Message - Yahoo! Messenger for SMS
>http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mweb/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:53 MDT