Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, I know what you posted. I also know where the flaws are in everything you talked about. For example, your claim that AI is making dramatic advances in cognition is hogwash There's no truth to it. The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse. The most common thing that Amazon's Alexa says is, "I don't understand what you just said." That's the default response. My post was in response to Giordano's characterization which seemed to include a fair amount of dishonesty.

Have you been absent internet access, until just today?

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':

https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/...ai-better-than-your-doctor-at-finding-cancer/

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-observes-many-times-more-lung-cancer-signals



(PART-A)

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

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



(PART-B)

Mankind has not yet mirrored the human brain in software/hardware, (as is demonstrable in groups such as Henry Markram's movement)

However, this does not remove part (PART-A) above, it is unavoidable that deep learning models already exceed humans in many cognitive (notably not all) tasks.





(PART-C)

I have not responded to what you've written because, as far as I can tell, you haven't said anything yet worth discussing.

Tegmark? Here he is back in 2014 jabbering away about emergent properties and Integrated Information Theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM. That was three years ago. What advances in machine cognition have been made by either Tegmark or IIT since then? Well, none.
At 10:30. He says, "I think consciousness is the way that information feels when it is being processed."

Well, there you go then -- consciousness solved! I'm sorry but I can't take Tegmark seriously when he talks about consciousness. He's flailing in the dark.

Example of recent machine learning work by Tegmark: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225

I am curious. What advances are you working on? Any public data on that?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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 atari q paper)




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

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

 

[Reality Check]

ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post

...

15 august 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post - the ignorant nonsense was "Deepmind’s atari q architecture".
No Atari architecture.
No q architecture
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.

 

[Reality Check]

ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy of "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"

Where had I supposedly mentioned that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?

15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that you stated "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"
The fact is that no super-manifolds are locally Euclidean and you stated that some super-manifolds can be "essentially flat euclidean super space".

Since you insist though:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorance of the role of quotes in English emphasized again!
"Supermanifold may encode as "essentially flat euclidean super space" fabric" with a citation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermanifold

An informal definition is commonly used in physics textbooks and introductory lectures. It defines a supermanifold as a manifold with both bosonic and fermionic coordinates. Locally, it is composed of coordinate charts that make it look like a "flat", "Euclidean" superspace.

"flat" is not actually flat. "Euclidean" is not Euclidean. An "informal definition" is not a mathematical definition !

 

[Reality Check]

ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense

And why do you deny the following:

Because I was hoping not to have to point even more nonsense from you. But since you insist.
The 30 March 2017 post gives
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense.

The Grassmann numbers represent some direction sequence, from some real valued x, in ϕ(x,θ,θ_).

That sentence is nonsense with a bit of irrelevant underlining. Supermanifold has

These local coordinates are often denoted by
ϕ(x,θ,θ^_)
where x is the (real-number-valued) spacetime coordinate, and θ and θ^_ are Grassmann-valued spatial "directions".

Note the quotes! The directions belong to the supermanifold and are expressed are elements of the Grassmann algebra.
This is a Grassmann number

In mathematical physics, a Grassmann number, named after Hermann Grassmann (also called an anticommuting number or supernumber), is an element of the exterior algebra over the complex numbers.[1] The special case of a 1-dimensional algebra is known as a dual number. Grassmann numbers saw an early use in physics to express a path integral representation for fermionic fields, although they are now widely used as a foundation for superspace, on which supersymmetry is constructed

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that you stated "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"The fact is that no super-manifolds are locally Euclidean and you stated that some super-manifolds can be "essentially flat euclidean super space".

Since you insist though:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorance of the role of quotes in English emphasized again!
"Supermanifold may encode as "essentially flat euclidean super space" fabric" with a citation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermanifold

"flat" is not actually flat. "Euclidean" is not Euclidean. An "informal definition" is not a mathematical definition !

Where had I supposedly expressed that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?

Are you aware that essentially need not mean exactly? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/essentially

Prediction: Reality Check shall continue to blather on, absent evidence.

 

[barehl]

Have you been absent internet access, until just today?

Yes, let's say that I've been absent. Why don't you list for me what you are talking about and I'll just cross out any that don't involve cognition. Hint: a computer playing chess does not involve cognition.

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":

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'))

Impressive. Anything actually related to cognition?


Will artificial intelligence take your job?:

Humans need not apply:

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:

Mankind has not yet mirrored the human brain in software/hardware, (as is demonstrable in groups such as Henry Markram's movement)

However, this does not remove part (PART-A) above, it is unavoidable that deep learning models already exceed humans in many cognitive (notably not all) tasks.

Yes, learning models exceed humans so profoundly that no one has been able to demonstrate it or even propose an experiment to demonstrate it or even give an estimate of what century it could be demonstrated. That is truly amazing.


Example of recent machine learning work by Tegmark:

I am curious. What advances are you working on?

About two years ago, I identified two subsystems in the brain that are responsible for awareness and problem solving. After that, I came up with a new theory of knowledge which is directly related to cognition but can be applied to decision making in complex systems. I'm currently working on the theoretical basis of comprehension. That's what none of the systems you've mentioned have.

Any public data on that?

No, not a word.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

PART A

Yes, let's say that I've been absent. Why don't you list for me what you are talking about and I'll just cross out any that don't involve cognition. Hint: a computer playing chess does not involve cognition.

Wrong.
Chess is doable by computer, in a cognitive manner.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:

Why didn't you research before commenting?




PART B

The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse.

Highlighted portion is trivially, demonstrably wrong.

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

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':
https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/...ai-better-than-your-doctor-at-finding-cancer/

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-observes-many-times-more-lung-cancer-signals


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'))


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


FOOTNOTE:
Mankind has not yet mirrored the human brain in software/hardware, (as is demonstrable in groups such as Henry Markram's movement)

Example of recent machine learning work by Tegmark:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225

Impressive. Anything actually related to cognition?
Yes, learning models exceed humans so profoundly that no one has been able to demonstrate it or even propose an experiment to demonstrate it or even give an estimate of what century it could be demonstrated. That is truly amazing.

Thousands have been able to do so, including those from the list I provided above.

You erred in believing that the models above 'had nothing to do with cognition', and that they were less than mouse level cognition. All of your beliefs here, are demonstrably absent evidential sources, and scientific data contrasts said beliefs (See the WikiData below):

PART C

I am curious. What advances are you working on? Any public data on that?

About two years ago, I identified two subsystems in the brain that are responsible for awareness and problem solving. After that, I came up with a new theory of knowledge which is directly related to cognition but can be applied to decision making in complex systems. I'm currently working on the theoretical basis of comprehension. That's what none of the systems you've mentioned have.

No, not a word.

As you present no public data, there is no demonstration of any machine learning know-how, of yours.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Because I was hoping not to have to point even more nonsense from you. But since you insist.
The 30 March 2017 post gives
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense.

That sentence is nonsense with a bit of irrelevant underlining. Supermanifold has

Note the quotes! The directions belong to the supermanifold and are expressed are elements of the Grassmann algebra.
This is a Grassmann number

That portion on grassmanian numbers, does not suddenly remove your blunder, as is demonstrated below:

Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

[imgw=190]http://i.imgur.com/JYrZOW4.jpg[/imgw]

15 august 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post - the ignorant nonsense was "Deepmind’s atari q architecture".
No Atari architecture.
No q architecture
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.

You are demonstrably wrong, as you will see below.

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-In...p-Q-networks-DQN-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9

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 models can include convolutional layers along with or without pooling layers. (Deep learning basics)

 

[barehl]

Wrong.
Chess is a cognitive task.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:

I haven't mentioned cognitive computing, only actual cognition. If cognitive computing is what you are so excited about then there is little point in continuing this conversation. I have no interest in that.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Wrong.
Chess is a cognitive task; chess is doable by computer, in a cognitive manner.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:

I haven't mentioned cognitive computing, only actual cognition. If cognitive computing is what you are so excited about then there is little point in continuing this conversation. I have no interest in that.

Cognitive computing, deals with actual cognition.

Anyway, if not computers (i.e. cognitive computing), what do you plan to implement your supposed theory on?

 

[barehl]

Cognitive computing, deals with actual cognition.

Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this, nor has any theory been published that would allow this. It has not been proven impossible but it does not exist today. If you want to pretend otherwise, well...it's your sandbox; have fun.

Anyway, if not computers (i.e. cognitive computing), what do you plan to implement your supposed theory on?

Why would you ask me about a theory that you've already dismissed?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I haven't mentioned cognitive computing, only actual cognition. If cognitive computing is what you are so excited about then there is little point in continuing this conversation. I have no interest in that.

Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this, nor has any theory been published that would allow this. It has not been proven impossible but it does not exist today. If you want to pretend otherwise, well...it's your sandbox; have fun.

As I showed you before, cognitive computing entails artificial intelligence:

As seen on the wiki page above, Ai is already doing cognitive tasks.

If not computers (cognitive computing) what do you plan to implement your model on?

Why would you ask me about a theory that you've already dismissed?

Based on the evidence on the Wikipedia page above, your prior words "I haven't mentioned any cognitive computing" is nonsensical, because it is the class of cognitive computing into which models of cognition would fall. (Unless you had specified some other medium on which your supposed model could run on, apart from computers.)

 

[barehl]

As I showed you before, cognitive computing entails artificial intelligence:

And, to repeat myself, I have no interest in "cognitive computing". I'm not going to discuss it.

As seen on the wiki page above, Ai is already doing cognitive tasks.

To repeat myself again, cognition is about understanding; I'm not interested in any other definition. If you insist on another definition for cognition then you can use that and just assume that I am only interested in understanding, not in whatever you consider cognition to be.

Why are you asking me about a theory you've already dismissed?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

And, to repeat myself, I have no interest in "cognitive computing". I'm not going to discuss it.

Cognitive computing deals with cognition in brains. (As seen here)

To repeat myself again, cognition is about understanding; I'm not interested in any other definition. If you insist on another definition for cognition then you can use that and just assume that I am only interested in understanding, not in whatever you consider cognition to be.

Whether or not you are interested in the definition, cognitive computing entails machine learning today.

Why are you asking me about a theory you've already dismissed?

I could care less about your supposed model.

However, I was unraveling your error; your claim to have not mentioned anything about cognitive computing, is silly, because computing is thus far our only means of implementing reasonable cognitive models.





[IMGw=200]http://i.imgur.com/JYrZOW4.jpg[/IMGw]

FOOTNOTE:

Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this...

Ai today can understand stuff, contrary to your contrasting claims:

Wikipedia Ai Page: "Natural language processing gives machines the ability to read and understand human language..."

 

[Reality Check]

ProgrammingGodJordan: Demonstrates an inability to read my post

That portion on grassmanian numbers, does not suddenly remove your blunder, as is demonstrated below:

16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Demonstrates an inability to read - my post was about other Grassmanian nonsense he posted!
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense. is about nonsense n a 30 March 2017 post.

 

[Reality Check]

A couple of crazily colored, irrelevant (e.g. obsessing with pooling layers) and insulting posts which I will ignore. I will list what we have so far before I return to the Thought Curvature PDF (linked so anyone can see the word salad it contains).

1. 24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
2. 27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
3. A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
4. 24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
5. 31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.
6. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
7. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
8. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C^∞(R_n)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
9. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: More irrelevant math that looks like gibberish is not a spoiler because you have shown that you can write math gibberish since 24 March 2017.
10. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten.
11. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that I am ignoring the evidence of math salad you persist in giving us.
12. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
13. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
14. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
15. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Repeats a nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn).
16. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
17. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that you stated "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"
18. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorance of the role of quotes in English emphasized again!
19. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense.
20. 16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Demonstrates an inability to read - my post was about other Grassmanian nonsense he posted!

 

[theprestige]

ProgrammingGodJordan if Witten is such a genius, how come he's ignoring you?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Typo Correction, reply 49 (updated empty 'eta' url')

"Simply", it consists of manifolds as models for concept representation, in conjunction with policy π - a temporal difference learning paradigm representing distributions over eta.