[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)

J. Andrew Rogers reality.miner at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 18:14:07 CET 2009

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Paul D. Fernhout
<pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> Another way to understand this might be to look at some of Marvin Minsky's
> and other's work on multiple representations and artificial intelligence. I
> was at a talk Minsky gave around 1999 where he outlined the idea that the
> human brain simultaneously kept running several different models of the
> world (semantic, 3D, 2D, and so on, don't remember for sure which ones he
> discussed) and kept choosing solutions from one of the model as they were
> most appropriate. So, there he was talking about building AIs with multiple
> ways of knowing, all going on simultaneously. :-) Mathematical and abstract
> enough for you? :-)

You are misunderstanding what you are reading here.  The internal
abstract representation of all those models is *identical*, it is the
information that varies from model to model. Semantics and 3D are the
same structure, you are just organizing the structures around
different properties of the raw information. It is a local
optimization with well-understood properties. This is a side-effect of
ideal intelligence not being possible in this universe (it is

> Only after the fact. Biofilms are theoretically not possible either,

Nonsense. You are conflating theoretical possibility with empirical
evidence.  This is a basic logic error.

> Could the same be true for how you say other things, whether disordered
> amorphous p2p volunteerism, or distributed search, are not theoretically
> possible, or are certain to fail? :-)

You are making some pretty severe category errors here, conflating
completely unrelated constructs as though they are subject to
equivalent analysis.

Some things are provably impossible in a strong mathematical sense.
Nothing proven mathematically has *ever* been invalidated by a fact of
reality.  There are some things for which we have only proven partial
properties i.e. we do not know what is potentially possible but we can
prove that some things are impossible regardless of that fact.  And
then there is science where nothing is ever proven at all.

There is no aspect of reality that does not obey strict mathematics as
we understand it. What is possible in the unknown areas of science is
bounded by what is allowed in mathematics.  That leaves many
unexplored possibilities, but it also means that we can say with a
high degree of certainty that some ideas are strictly disallowed even
without bothering to collect empirical evidence.

Every time someone has pretended that mathematics doesn't apply to
some aspect of reality, disaster has ensued.

J. Andrew Rogers

More information about the p2presearch mailing list