Too much to ask:

[wolven7]

I want an Artificial Intellicence that can understand nuance, symbolism, conceptual schema, and the fact that what of those I may represent in my mind and daily operations may not represent and make sense, in the same way, in It's processes.

And that THAT IS OKAY.
If we manage to create that, I'll be more than happy.

Because then I could teach it magic.

Comments

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

there are already humans you can teach.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Hasn't worked so well for magic, or at least hasn't seemed to, thus far.

Maybe I'm just not looking right.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I feel that magic lends itself more to autodidact methods. Additionally most magical teachers and schools of magic are about indoctrination rather than practical study.

Additionally teaching is more difficult than it seems at first, studying education technique and theory might help as well.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I've been studying those things, since I was in high school, when I first started teaching. I think it's more that some things are harder to teach than others.

Indoctrination into a fixed dogma is pretty much exactly what i don't want to do.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I'd love to hear your methods actually, I once developed a program that sparked some controversy. I'd be curious to compare notes.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Any program that differs from that of a group setting is going to cause some stir.

Even if "program" is just a catch-all term for "paying attention to the students and doing what works." If it goes against some set curriculum, it's going to cause friction.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

The claim I made was that I could take a neophyte to an adept in around six month depending on the time they spent with the program. I also proposed to do it without a set system of symbols or correspondences. An acquaintance of mine was taking one of Peter Carroll's courses at the maybe logic academy and brought it to the class' attention. Carroll reportedly said it was interesting, but that he was skeptical of any proposal of an easy path to adepthood. Personally I just see that as the pervasive narrative that magic is in some way only for the elite because it is hard, or dangerous, or whatever other boogey many is invoked to preserve the obfuscation of magical practice.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Which is to say, "that's all I ever do, and did you lay out your program, anywhere?"

Really, I've always tried to focus on the needs of the individual, or smallish group, and tailor the stories and work to them, as much as possible.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

The seed of the program is in this post:

http://sammhain.livejournal.com/177683.html

I refined it for an article on key64, but as the site is "evolving" I can't link you to it. I'm currently writing a more updated version of it anyway, but even its notes are not online yet.

The program is designed primarily for individuals, but could easily be modified for smaller groups. The gist of it is an exercise which provides hands on experience with developing personal symbols, including the importance of narrative, and exercises that reduce hesitation and fear. All the excercises indirectly teach basic methods of sleight of mind/altered states of perception.

Rather than focusing on creating traditionally magicy looking symbols, the program focuses on turning everyday objects and local geographies into symbols. There is also a focus on marrying sensory memory to the symbols so that certain memories can serve as potent symbols to work magic with.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I like it. Could definitely have great transformative effect.

[halafax.livejournal.com]

Daleks?

You know the biggest issue with teaching magic is when people think they can use it to do everything. Or they dont really believe. Its like ooo look I do magic Im so dark and brooding...or Im so outside the box.

Everyone has something in them, its a matter of whether they stifled it, cultivated it, or let it run ga ga...

Now if daleks could throw magic around that could be scary, maybe a cyber man.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Daleks and Cybermen are too rigid, I think... But it's a start.

[halafax.livejournal.com]

I do everything for queen and country.

Dalek Sek

that is all that needs to be said.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Good points, both.

[zombiebear.livejournal.com]

you haven't read cards for me in A WHILE

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's very true. Come over, tonight, after Trivia.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

This is actually the basis of a conversation I had with a friend of mine...

Which boiled down to a very simple "the biggest difference between actual intelligence and artificial intelligence is that actual intelligence doesn't make a requirement for two things to add up correctly to continue operating"

Which is ultimately due to the fact that we're not computational machines the way computers are. Neurons firing and 0's and 1's adding up together are vastly different systems.

What you want is a computer that can simulate a broken computer that still functions.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Considering that we modeled computers on ourselves, I tend to think of most computers as not having a full range of functionality and complexity.

But, other than that, yes, exactly. I want a computer that can realise that, on a long enough time line, parallel lines overlap.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

While, at the same time, never touching.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

Well, in a lot of ways we have modeled computers after ourselves, but in more ways we HAVEN'T. The hardware has just expanded into a sort of parallel analog. The original idea of using binary was to try and remove human error from the equation (to summarize the history of computers in a gross and perversely over-simplified way) and the whole hardrive/ram/cpu - longterm memory/short term memory/cortex just sort of happened because it's the simplest system to store and collate data.

Keeping in mind that computer sciences and neurology were BOTH in their infancy in the 60's, I've often wondered how much each has influenced the other, in so much as the words and concepts we use to describe the physical structures and the processes of those structures.

I mean, the whole "wait, the computer is thinking" or "my brain isn't processing this data" sort of language thing. It's just interesting, I think.

But yeah, overall the big difference is that a computer is essentially running math all the time, and if you have an algebra equation with an unknown variable, the computer won't "guess" unless you write a program to have it run through the possible substitute variables and choosing one that most "likely" fits the data, and at that point the criteria for "most likely" is decided by the programmer, and to my knowledge there isn't a standard criteria.

Whereas running on neurological impulses, the impulses will fire and don't have to finish an equation correctly. More neurons will fire or none will and you'll stand there dumbfounded until you just guess, try to solve other small equations to fit a substitute variable into the equation, or give up entirely due to other neurons firing and telling you to stop waste time on something unsolvable.

We're also able to continue to function having disparate information. Think of when we were teens and all the conflicting concepts of social norms and functions we had. We all felt we had to fit in, be individuals, listen to what is cool, decide what is cool for ourselves, etc... But we'd simply choose one principle to over-rule another principle at a given time.

Artificial intelligence is actually smarter than we are, but it's just really shitty at adapting to situations where it's dumb.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Artificial intelligence is actually smarter than we are, but it's just really shitty at adapting to situations where it's dumb.

Just precisely what i want it to do better. And then teach us the rest of being smarter than us.

I think these are equally important traits to the kind of workable wholeness I'm aiming toward.