-Original Message-
From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:14 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTATION
ED PORTER
I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph
Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of unfolding time, as we see it, but of a journey across
On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:54:53 pm, Steve Richfield wrote:
Back to those ~200 different types of neurons. There are probably some cute
tricks buried down in their operation, and you probably need to figure out
substantially all ~200 of those tricks to achieve human intelligence. If I
were an
Thanks. Excellent site. And here is a talk about advanced fmri - given our
recent discussion:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/236
David H: An excellent 20-minute TED talk from Susan Blackmore (she's a
brilliant speaker!)
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/269
I considered posting to the
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you
might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the
dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that
rocks are not conscious.
2008/6/4 John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually you are on to something. Since there are patterns in the rock,
molecular, granular, electronic, subatomic the rock has string of bits that
represent time frame samples of consciousness recordings. So I mean if they
were played with the right
Consciousness clearly requires feedback - read Hofstadter's I Am A Strange Loop
(http://www.amazon.com/Am-Strange-Loop-Douglas-Hofstadter/dp/0465030793/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8qid=1212604343sr=11-1)
Recordings of consciousness are not consciousness in the same way that a CD is
not music.
-
Josh,
I apparently failed to clearly state my central argument. Allow me to try
again in simpler terms:
The difficulties in proceeding in both neuroscience and AI/AGI is NOT a lack
of technology or clever people to apply it, but is rather a lack of
understanding of the real world and how to
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an
ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of
2008/6/4 J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the rock thinking?
T h i s i s w a a a y o f f t o p i c . . .
Rocks are obviously superintelligences. By behaving like inert matter
and letting us build monuments and gravel pathways out of them they're
just lulling us into a
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ED PORTER
I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph
structures
like semantic nets, are probably close to as efficient as possible
given
the
type of connectionism they are representing and the type of
2008/6/4 Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/6/4 J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the rock thinking?
T h i s i s w a a a y o f f t o p i c . . .
Rocks are obviously superintelligences. By behaving like inert matter
and letting us build monuments and gravel pathways
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of unfolding time, as we see
John G. Rose wrote:
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you
might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the
dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that
rocks are not
Well, Ray Kurzweil famously believes that AI must wait for the mapping of the
brain. But if that's the case, everybody on this list may as well go home for
20 years, or start running rats in mazes.
I personally think the millions of years of evolution argument is a red
herring. Technological
But, without us droids, how would you verify/validate your
consciousness? And, think about what you'd be taking over. As Sting
says, What good's a world that's all used up? Rhetorical questions,
both. When I start quoting Sting lyrics, I *know* it's time for me to
get off a thread. Ta!
From: Steve Richfield said:
Some clues as to the totality of the difficulties are the ~200 different types
of neurons, and in the 40 years of ineffective AI/AGI research. I have seen NO
recognition of this fundamental issue in other postings on this forum. This
level of difficulty strongly
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that it is for us in the modern day technological society. But
it may not have been always the case. We have been grounded by reason.
Before reason it may have been largely supernatural. That's why
sometimes I think AGI's could start off
Josh,
On 6/4/08, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, Ray Kurzweil famously believes that AI must wait for the mapping of
the
brain. But if that's the case, everybody on this list may as well go home
for
20 years, or start running rats in mazes.
It just isn't all that hard.
19 matches
Mail list logo
