Gadgetoff 2007 - Marvin Minsky

[AntoMelta]

Good, I like that you share this video Marvin touches on topics ranging from backing up the human brain to the gadgets in his pocket to his latest theory of Artificial Intelligence., I wish success always

[willamricard]

Nice Video Marvin touches on topics ranging from backing up the human brain to the gadgets in his pocket to his latest theory of Artificial Intelligence That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You

[imegatrone]

I Really Like The Video Marvin touches on topics ranging from backing up the human brain to the gadgets in his pocket to his latest theory of Artificial Intelligence From Your

[bundawartini]

Your Video Marvin touches on topics ranging from backing up the human brain to the gadgets in his pocket to his latest theory of Artificial Intelligence Is Very Useful Sharing

[KOGR11]

mervin needs to watch more anime.

[angela1894]

He has a strange body type

[callestropp]

Hes a genius, I almost get the feeling that he has autism or perhaps that just being a reaction to his intelligence. In some way I find him charming.

[SounzNice]

why the crap would you carry all that?

[versus79]

Minsky is eloquent, but all he does is reiterate standard materialist theories of mind. He's a better speaker than Dennett and Churchland but in the end, they all argue for the same theory: the mind is a mechanistic, determined machine. Of course, if this is true, then thought and reason are automated physical processes. If that's true, then we have no reason to believe anything we think is true, since we are programmed to think it no matter what. All forms of materialism are self refuting.

[gunman806]

Regardless of whether or not the universe and our brains are fully deterministic, how does it follow that everything we think is of no value? Cognitively, we are only pre-programmed insofar as we inherit neural circuitry that allows for things like inference, pattern recognition, and abstraction; all of which aid us in developing conceptual models of phenomena. Does our state of high technology not reflect the usefulness and accuracy of the brain's models?

[paganiniGOGO]

What's the alternative theory? Souls?

Nice try.

[andyx1205]

There's a reason why 90% of the Nobel Laureates of Science are atheist/agnostic. Because God is a social construct.

Isaac Asimov: There are only 2 people I've met in my life who I admit are smarter than me, carl sagan and marvin minsky.

[paganiniGOGO]

A bit weird that he'd say that, there are plenty of other people as smart as Minsky and Sagan.

[andyx1205]

I know there are, he was talking about the people he's "met." Obviously he hadn't met everyone.

[PsychoticCat723]

@paganiniGOGO & @andyx1205 and perception and socialization is a big thing. Some people have amazing analytical ability, but can't interact in a way that would make them seem normal, much less intelligent.

[paganiniGOGO]

@PsychoticCat723

e.g. idiot savants

But what's your point?

[PsychoticCat723]

@paganiniGOGO It's hard to admit somebody who can't hold a conversation is smarter than you? dunno...

[paganiniGOGO]

Once again I have no clue what you're saying or why (or whether) I am being insulted.

If you're responding to something I wrote a month ago I suggest you enlighten me.

[PsychoticCat723]

@paganiniGOGO No insults intended. You're definitely right that there are plenty of people out there that are smarter. I think what I was trying to get at is the concept of ego and who you are willing to admit is smarter than you. Many people think intelligence is the prime representation of a person's success in life, so saying that this person is smarter might mean they're intrinsically ''better''. I took it to mean that he thinks they're intelligent and he respects them a great deal.

[paganiniGOGO]

It just sounds a little arrogant for someone to say that they've only met two people smarter than them. But I'm sure what he meant was that he respects or admires them, as you said.

Intelligence is hard enough to define anyway, which is why comparisons are pointless, and shouldn't be given too much importance, as you also said.

[polymath7]

@paganiniGOGO

Why? There is a finite number of human beings in the world.

Someone is the tallest, someone is the smartest.

I have yet to meet a single person who is -at least n my judgement- *as* intelligent as I, let alone more so (and I've certainly yet to discover any need of humility).

[paganiniGOGO]

@polymath7

You've never met anyone, in person, as smart as you? Or do you think you are the most intelligent person in the world right now?

[polymath7]

@paganiniGOGO

Possibly both. My point is that even if *I* cannot reasonably hold this belief, there is someone somewhere who *can*.

[paganiniGOGO]

There would still be the problem of defining, (let alone measuring), intelligence. There's obviously no one dimensional criterion, as in height. I think we can probably agree, for example, that IQ is not completely satisfactory. I mean I don't think Christopher Langan, one of the highest IQ's in the world, should be considered more intelligent than Einstein.

On a side note, what's a genius like you working on these days?

[polymath7]

I.

Note that I said, "reasonably" not "with certainty".

Now if definition is so problematic, why is someone like Asimov *obliged* to admit there are more than two people smarter than he?

The computers we're typing on in some respects far exceed the capacities of any human brain, and yet it is perfectly true to say that the overall intelligence of the stupidest person you have ever talked to is (at least for now) many orders of magnitude beyond that of the world's most powerful supercomputers.

[polymath7]

II.

Please don't get me started on Christian Langan, but I promise you he does *not* have a 195 IQ.

Sorry, but I need better primary sources than some website and the american TV show 20/20 (this is after all the program that employs yellow journalist John Stossil, who sits near the top of my list of people I'd most like to choke to death with my bare hands just to watch the light fade from their bulging eyes),

As for the validity of IQ, it's rather analogous to BMI (body mass index)...

[polymath7]

III.

...that is to say, it's a reasonable estimation.

It's been said that certain great scientists have scored surprisingly low on IQ tests; for example I've heard 115 for James Watson,124 for Richard Feynman, and 148 for Einstein (still quite high of course but not extraordinary).

I have since found the figure for Einstein to be apocryphal, (it appears he never took an IQ test) but as far as I know the scores for Watson and Feynman are correct.

Even so, I submit that they are...

[polymath7]

IV.

...merely the exceptions that prove the rule.

A cognitive scientist (if I remember correctly he's a cognitive scientist) named Stephen Hsu tested the IQ's of something like 25~ physicists elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and the *mean* was 166 -statistically a score of about one-in-ten-thousand.

As for what I'm up to, I do a number of things and harbor a number of ambitions -which is a large part of why I have the immodest presumption to call myself "polymath"- but....

[polymath7]

V.

...my two central aspirations are to become widely regarded, before I'm forty, as the greatest visual artist since renaissance (for obvious reasons I identify strongly with Leonardo da Vinci) , and to finish and publish a fundamental theory of consciousness I'v been working on, one that is nothing short of Newtonian or Darwinian in its scope.

In short -*very* short- I think Chalmers' "hard problem" is quite real, and I think I just may have the beginnings of a solution to it.

You did ask.

[paganiniGOGO]

When do you think you're going to publish a solution?

[polymath7]

To be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure that I ever will -understand just how ambitious this is.

I'm reasonably confident I'll have something within the next year or two, but

I intend my theory to be a *theory* and a not a chuckle-headed farrago of hollow Bergsonian metaphors.

Thus, for now, I need to spend my time gaining a firmer grounding physics and information theory (I already know quite a bit of neuroscience and philosophy of mind).

[polymath7]

@polymath7

*grounding in

[gespilk]

2:18 "I think there is a big future in vehicles with legs." .... Unlikely.

SO WHEN are we going to have real AI? He makes it sound like the problem is trivial. Is he talking about integration of various AI methods?

So Mr Minsky If given a bunch of sensors and a bunch of actuators all in some environment can you make a program that would evolve to become intelligent?

May be intelligence is a by-product of necessity to survive and faster adaptation to changes.

[robotaholic]

omg i love him

[jimlovesearth2]

i love him to for his mind. He's truly a genius. But his ideas scare the shit out of me to. Are we really machines, and is our next evolution into a self conscious black box? Sounds plausible and compelling, but i wonder why I should even derive any pleasure from sex, music, or food. I'll never look at any of these things the same. When i fuck, i'm just trying to relax my machine, i'm not doing anything beautiful. Beauty is not truth. Please answer.

[paganiniGOGO]

Does thinking you're a machine reduce the pleasure of an orgasm? Probably not.

[archaedemos]

definitely a smart man. cool vid

[HymerSchmidt]

I just started reading The Emotion Machine. So far sooooo good.

[Omegax9000]

he lost me......

[maxhodges]

I read SOM as a teenager. It had s profound impact on me in many ways. I've been fortunate enough to have corresponded with Minsky over the years, and we've even discussed translating The Emotion Machine into Japanese. Anyone interesting in psychology, AI, cognitive science, the mind and the brain would do well to read anything writing by and about Marvin Minsky.

[Thinkanalytic]

How the hell did you manage to talk to him?

These intellectual popstars are so hard to reach....

[maxhodges]

When I worked at Compaq Computer Corp I contacted Minsky about setting up some collaboration between our shop and their lab. Compaq was a co-sponsor of the Future Workplace project to eliminate the keyboard from the workplace. I wrote him later to check on the status of The Emotion Machine and he sent me drafts prior to publication. Then he contact me about publishing in Japan (I run an independent publishing company in Tokyo). Also he contacted me to tell me he agreed with my amazon comments

[vincevl]

Isaac Asimov said he only met 2 people smarter than himself.

Carl Sagan was the other.

[dbanici]

Mister Minsky is my absolute hero. His book, The Society of Mind, will forever change your view on how the mind works. Forget Semiotics and scholarly debates - brilliant answers always come from people who think outside the box. Congratulations, Mr. Minsky - without even realizing it you may have taken society from the grips of religious fanaticism and into light and reason. I just hope more people would read your brilliant essays.

[polymath7]

I read society of mind when I was eighteen, and it did indeed forever change how I think about the mind. One of the most fascinating and charming books in existence.

[mobilezonetv]

SOM is truly amazing. The Emotion Machine is a very good complement to it.

[Khono]

I'd take you more seriously if you didn't use absolutes like that. But I'll see about reading his books. Hehe, he's quite a character, eh?

[mobilezonetv]

Trust me.

[ThomasJeromeNewton]

so computer science > linguistics?

that's like the people who think the real revolutions are technological. Too much pro science versus creationism. Enough with the myths.

[dbanici]

If you'd read it, you would understand (or then again, maybe not). Your mind and the way it works cannot be properly explained by the presumed notion that you have an ID, a soul, a "me". So Minsky in an eloquent collection of essays suggests a different way to look at how the processes that make a thinking human actually work, and it makes a lot of sense. That's all, I am as anti-myth as anyone you will ever find. And comments like yours are typical of the bickering in semiotic circles.

[ThomasJeromeNewton]

Cognito Ergo sum. We have an identity which we categorise ourselves due to our mind not just being a some of memories, like any cat or dog, we diagnose the input of pain or the input of joy, thus reacting to it. The intelectual mind calculates , using that as a premise. hence All cats are grey.

[dbanici]

I guess the rationale of superiority to other mammals gives comfort... to some. For how could animals feel joy and pain? That would make us think twice before ordering a triple-cheesebuger. You seem like a smart guy; I am sure you have nothing against reading. I am not here to defend Minsky against someone who obviously argues without knowing what the book is about. Aut disce aut discede.

[jimlovesearth2]

why doesn't it bother minsky at all that we are machines? he is obviously a genius, and emotion machine is very persuasive. Minsky himself considers notions of the soul and God to be primitive constructs of an inefficient machine. that's fine. But no matter how brilliant he is, he seems to be in a trap (which he doesn't even consider to one, perhaps because he is so keenly self aware) that the universe still has no fucking meaning. Please answer.

[dbanici]

You'd have to ask yourself about what bothers you, not other people about why it doesn't bother them. Do you honestly expect that if the Universe has meaning, we here microbes in an arm of a galaxy with billions of stars, which takes 250 million years to rotate once around itself, one of billions of other galaxies, will find the meaning of the Universe? Such an assumption is almost as arrogant as religion, which presumes there is some sort of God and that they also know what she wants.

[rationalCrash]

why would it bother him? How is it a trap? However the universe works, that's the truth. Meaning implies a specific purpose which can't exist without an intelligence directing/creating it (no evidence for the universe having a creator).

[zalmoxe]

You may think that being a machine is a bad, depressive thing because you've been brought up to think otherwise, and now feel the need to tear down a massive foundational thought-structure, which involves considerable discomfort (people are similarly dismayed when they find out there's no Santa Claus).

If we expose people from the start to this *possibility* (not as an absolute truth), they will acccept it without any protest. There are plenty of benefits to the man-as-machine mindset.

[ThomasJeromeNewton]

In fact I was arguing perhaps advocating the importance of irrationality from a subjective at times flawed premise that involves expression. Hence all cats are grey.

And yes I'm a non meat eating "girly man".

[mobilezonetv]

This Sir is much more than a brilliant mind. He is a brilliant human being.