Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Richard Dismissal as gibberish is one of the oldest and cheapest rhetorical tricks in History and the signpost of a feeble mind. I would save a mention of you in my memoirs, but that would still be far too generous ... JLM ^ John, You make a mistake common to many people who make claims such as yours: you deliver some incoherent gibberish and claim that it is a theory of everything, then you tell the world that it is the world's responsibility to prove you wrong. Incoherent gibberish cannot be proven wrong. It is part of the very definition of incoherent gibberish, that such stuff cannot be proven wrong. Harvey Newstrom was quite right: this is borderline spam. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How do we know we don't know?
This is how I explain it: when we perceive a stimulus, word in this case, it doesn't reach our brain as a single neuron firing or synapse, but as a set of already processed neuronal groups or sets of synapses, that each recall various other memories, concepts and neuronal group. Let me clarify this. In the example you give, the wod artcop might reach us as a set of stimuli: art, cop, mediu-sized word, word that begins with a, and so on. All these connect activate various maps in our memory, and if something substantial is monitored at some point (going with Richard's theory of the monitor, I don't have other references of this actually), we form a response. This is more obvious in the case of sight - where an image is first broken into various compontents that are separately elaborated: colours, motion, edges, shapes, etc. - and then further sent to the upper parts of the memory where they can be associated to higher level concepts. If any of this is not clear let me know, instead of adding me to your kill-lists ;-P Valentina On 7/31/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vlad: I think Hofstadter's exploration of jumbles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumble ) covers this ground. You don't just recognize the word, you work on trying to connect it to what you know, and if set of letters didn't correspond to any word, you give up. There's still more to word recognition though than this. How do we decide what is and isn't, may or may not be a word? A neologism? What may or may not be words from: cogrough dirksilt thangthing artcop coggourd cowstock or fomlepaung or whatever? --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong. For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong. - H.L. Mencken --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How do we know we don't know?
Vladimir Nesov wrote: I think Hofstadter's exploration of jumbles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumble ) covers this ground. You don't just recognize the word, you work on trying to connect it to what you know, and if set of letters didn't correspond to any word, you give up. This establishes deep similarity between problem-solving, perception and memory, and poses deliberative reasoning as iterative application of reflexive perception-steps. If you think the question and it gives you an answer, you can act on it. If it doesn't, the context in which you thought the question, deliberative program starting the request, will produce I don't know... response. It's probably as simple as that: a higher level of organization, not fundamental to the structure of mind, learned behavior. Agreed: Hofstadter's Jumbo system was inspirational to me when i read it in 1986/7, and that idea of relaxation is exactly what was behind the descriptions that I gave, earlier in this thread, of systems that tried to do recognition and question answering by constraint relaxation. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How do we know we don't know?
Mike, Valentina was referring to a remark I made (and shouldn't have -- just on general principles) about her making my *personal* kill-list thanks to the LOL she left regarding Richard Loosemore's original reply to the post that started this thread. I should have taken a time out before I opened my big fingers. Had I done so, I would have found out (as I did through subsequent exchanges with Richard) that his comments were based on a misunderstanding. He thought what I was calling the list of things we don't know was a list of all things not known. It wasn't. I was referring to the list of things we know we don't know. I take full responsibility for creating this misunderstanding through sloppy writing/editing. Anyhow, I took Richard's initial comments the wrong way (probably because I'm as insecure as the next person). Valentina's message got read in that context. The misunderstanding has all been worked out now, so there was really no reason for all the initial drama. Valentina: if you're reading this, I apologize for overreacting. I re-read your post after I'd calmed down and realized that you did add a brief comment on Richard's reply. You didn't just pile on. I look forward to hearing more about your views on building an AGI. I'm happy to see this thread has generated some interesting side discussions. I'm here to learn and, occasionally, see what people who give a lot of time and thought to this subject think of my whacky ideas. Cheers, Brad Mike Tintner wrote: Er no, I don't believe in killing people :) I'm not quite sure what you're what getting at. I was just trying to add another layer of complexity to the brain's immensely multilayered processing. Our processing of new words/word combinations shows that there is a creative aspect to this processing - it isn't just matching. Some of this might be done by standard verbal associations/ semantic networks - e.g. yes IMO artcop could be a word for, say, art critic - cops police, and art can be seen as being policed - I may even have that last expression in memory. But in other cases, the processing may have to be done by imaginative association/drawing - dirksilt could just conceivably be a word, if I imagine some dirk/dagger-like tool being used on silt, (doesn't make much sense but conceivable for my brain) - I doubt that such reasoning could be purely verbal. Valentina: This is how I explain it: when we perceive a stimulus, word in this case, it doesn't reach our brain as a single neuron firing or synapse, but as a set of already processed neuronal groups or sets of synapses, that each recall various other memories, concepts and neuronal group. Let me clarify this. In the example you give, the wod artcop might reach us as a set of stimuli: art, cop, mediu-sized word, word that begins with a, and so on. All these connect activate various maps in our memory, and if something substantial is monitored at some point (going with Richard's theory of the monitor, I don't have other references of this actually), we form a response. This is more obvious in the case of sight - where an image is first broken into various compontents that are separately elaborated: colours, motion, edges, shapes, etc. - and then further sent to the upper parts of the memory where they can be associated to higher level concepts. If any of this is not clear let me know, instead of adding me to your kill-lists ;-P On 7/31/08, *Mike Tintner* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vlad: I think Hofstadter's exploration of jumbles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumble ) covers this ground. You don't just recognize the word, you work on trying to connect it to what you know, and if set of letters didn't correspond to any word, you give up. There's still more to word recognition though than this. How do we decide what is and isn't, may or may not be a word? A neologism? What may or may not be words from: cogrough dirksilt thangthing artcop coggourd cowstock or fomlepaung or whatever? *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
