On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, by the way, it's description not decription. (I am only having some
fun! But talk about a psychological slip. What was on your mind when you
wrote decription I wonder?)
It wasn't death, so it must have had
So give us an example of something that you are going to test, and how your
experimental methodology would make it clear that the dots can be connected.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim,
I was trying to backup my claim that the current approach is
were, your sense of progress would come to an end.
At that point some genuine advancements would be necessary, but if you got
to that point you might find that some of those advancements were waiting
for you (if you had enough insight to realize it).
Jim Bromer
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=who%27s+on+firstei=utf-8fr=ie8
YouTube - Who's on first?
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
Students' Understanding of the Equal Sign Not Equal, Professor Says
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122200.htm
The equal sign is pervasive and fundamentally linked to mathematics from
kindergarten through upper-level calculus, Robert M. Capraro says. The
idea of symbols that
though that would be easy to imagine.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing
prototypes using
try it sometime just to get some idea of what it would do.
Jim Bromer
---
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
Single Neurons Can Detect Sequences
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100812151632.htm
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't expect
you to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in
mind for future discussions.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI
child-level
judgement?
This may sound like frivolous philosophy but I think it really shows that
the starting point isn't totally beyond us.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:53 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to be an overly simplistic view of AGI from
to be diversifiable but your inability to understand certain things that are
said about computer programming makes your proclamation look odd.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Isn't it time that people started adopting true AGI criteria
diversification of referential knowledge. You might say that is what
scalability means.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't feel that a non-programmer can actually define what true AGI
criteria would be. The problem is not just oriented
to work more effectively, we might be better able to develop more
powerful AGI theories that show greater scalability, so long as we are able
to understand what interests the program is pursuing.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010
solution would
be useful as well.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
Slightly off the topic of your last email. But, all this discussion has
made me realize how to phrase something... That is that solving AGI requires
understand the constraints
the range and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse
examples be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of
knowledge that could be accessed quickly and reliably, especially for the
most common examples that the person is familiar with.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Aug 9
would make the critics more wary of
expressing their skepticism.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
How do you reckon that will work for an infant or anyone who has only
seen an example or two of the concept class-of-forms?
(You're
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.comwrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
how would these diverse examples
be woven into highly compressed and heavily cross-indexed pieces of
knowledge that could be accessed
in the probability that a particular string
would be produced from all possible programs, so that when actually testing
the prior probability of a particular string the program that was to be run
would have to be randomly generated.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Abram Demski abramdem
not being
petty about this, but I also needed to make sure that I understood what
Solomonoff Induction is.
I am interested in hearing your ideas about your variation of
Solomonoff Induction because your convergent series, in this context, was
interesting.
Jim Bromer
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM
saying that it would make the
problem 2 times as hard, but without experimental evidence it isn't any
saner either.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
:D Thanks Jim for paying attention!
One very cool thing about the human brain is that we use
with computer vision that
it is a serious mistake not to take advantage of opportunity.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I've suddenly realized that computer vision of real images is very much
solvable and that it is now just a matter of engineering. I
original idea involve randomizing whether the next bit
would be a 1 or a 0 in the program? Even ignoring the halting problem what
kind of result would that give? Have you ever solved the problem for
some strings and have you ever tested the solutions using a simulation?
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010
,
but in the other sense, the program will, given enough time, eventually
start writing out any real number. Since the infinite must be an ongoing
process I can say that the algorithm is capable of reaching any real number
although it will never complete any of them.
Jim Bromer
.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim, you are thinking out loud. There is no such thing as
trans-infinite. How about posting when you actually solve the problem.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
science but it was a little more difficult than counting
to infinity (which is of course is itself impossible!)
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
I guess the trans-infinite is computable, given infinite resources. It
doesn't make sense to me except that the infinite does not exist as a
number-like object, it is an active process of incrementation or something
like that. End of Count.
---
agi
I see that erasure is from an alternative definition for a Turing Machine.
I am not sure if a four state Turing Machine could be used to
make Solomonoff Induction convergent. If all programs that required working
memory greater than the length of the output string could be eliminated then
that
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I see that erasure is from an alternative definition for a Turing Machine.
I am not sure if a four state Turing Machine could be used to
make Solomonoff Induction convergent. If all programs that required working
memory
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching') every
possible irrational number - given infinite resources. The infinite is not
a number-like object, it is an active form of incrementation or
concatenation. So I can write an algorithm that can write *every* finite
state of
I think I can write an abbreviated version, but there would only be a few
people in the world who would both believe me and understand why it would
work.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching
to get back to other-worldly things.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim,
I'll argue that solomonoff probabilities are in fact like Pi, that is,
computable in the limit.
I still do not understand why you think these combinations
not
think that it is trans-infinite.
Jim Bromer
---
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
.
Congratulations on being honest, you have already achieved more than the
experts who aren't so.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:42 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Arthur,
Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
things. I am
-constructivist) proof.
So I can't prove that Solomonoff Induction is inherently trans-infinite.
I am going to take a few weeks to see if I can determine if the idea of
Solomonoff Induction makes hypothetical sense to me.
Jim Bromer
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com
Induction
in such a way to show that the probability (or probabilities) tend toward a
limit. If my theory is correct, and right now I would say that there is a
real chance that it is, I have proved that Solmonoff Induction is
theoretically infeasible, illogical and therefore refuted.
Jim Bromer
and the desired function is completely
unsound.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I might have been wrong about the feasibility of writing an algorithm
that can produce all the possible combinations of items when I wrote my last
message. It is because
may not all be unique, they all have to be tried. Since each
simulated Turing Machine would produce infinite programs, I am pretty sure
that this means that Solmonoff Induction is, *by definition,*trans-infinite.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Solomonoff Induction may require a trans-infinite level of complexity just
to run each program. Suppose each program is iterated through the
enumeration of its instructions. Then, not only do the infinity of
possible
can see how to revise my
theory about the aspect of the function that is computable (or seems
computable).
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote:
Jim,
Aha! So you *are* a constructivist or intuitionist or finitist of some
variety? This would
but to the
enumerated program that corresponds to the string of their individual
instructions. So I got that one wrong.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite.
The fundamental method is that the probability of a string x is
proportional to the sum of all programs M that output x weighted by 2^-|M|.
That probability is dominated
it
the way you want to.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
Please give me a little more explanation why you say the fundamental
method is that the probability of a string x is proportional to the sum of
all programs M that output x weighted
the ongoing process of trying to
determine what is going on and what actions should be made would
simultaneously act like an automated index to find better knowledge more
suited for the situation.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive
actually said. That is one reason why I am starting to ignore you.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
The question was asked whether, given infinite resources could Solmonoff
Induction work. I made the assumption
I
actually said. That is one reason why I am starting to ignore you.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt,
I never said that I did not accept the application of the method of
probability, it is just that is has to be applied using logic
can
then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... tier of
recombinations.
Anyone who claims that this method is the ideal for a method of applied
probability is unwise.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303
I should have said, It would be unwise to claim that this method could stand
as an ideal for some valid and feasible application of probability.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite
get some means of representing more about
a formula in an efficient manner.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https
Because a logical system can be applied to a problem, that does not mean
that the logical system is the same as the problem. Most notably, the
theory of numbers contains definitions that do not belong to logic per se.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ian Parker ianpark...@gmail.com
to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff
induction is, without checking how it is actually defined...
--Abram
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite.
Suppose you iterate through all possible
Well, Boolean Logic may be a part of number theory but even then it is still
not the same as number theory.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Because a logical system can be applied to a problem, that does not mean
that the logical system is the same
flaws because it obviously wouldn't make any
sense vis a vis a reasonable and sound application of probability theory.
For example, would you be willing to write to a real expert in probability
theory to ask him for his opinions on Solomonoff Induction? Because I would
be.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jul 21
like a last-ditch effort to teach him some basic humility.
Jim Bromer
---
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
If someone had a profound knowledge of Solomonoff Induction and the *science
of probability* he could at the very least talk to me in a way that I knew
he knew what I was talking about and I knew he knew what he was talking
about. He might be slightly obnoxious or he might be casual or (more
or anything else is
pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration.
There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is nothing
in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove it.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https
example, but that, for example, has nothing to do with anything
that you said.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim,
*sigh* My response to that would just be to repeat certain questions I
already asked you... I guess we should give it up after
is garbage science. It was a good effort on
Solomonoff's part, but it didn't work and it is time to move on, as the
majority of theorists have.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote:
Jim,
I'm still not sure what your point even is, which is probably
definition with a value or values from the domain. While
this barrier can be transcended in some very special cases, it very
obviously cannot be ignored for the general case.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed
strings
whose ordering is so confused that they would be totally useless for any
kind of prediction of a string based on a given prefix, as is claimed. The
system is not any kind of ideal but rather *a confused theoretical notion.
*
I might be wrong. Or I might be right.
Jim Bromer
at 10:28 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.comwrote:
Well I guess I misunderstood what you said.
But, you did say,
The question of whether the function would be useful for the sorts of
things we keep talking about ... well, I think the best argument that I can
give is that MDL is strongly
it was.
In both of these instances you used qualifications of excess. Totally,
well-defined and full. It would be like me saying that because your
thesis is wrong in a few ways, your thesis is 'totally wrong in full concept
space or something like that.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:02
program space was mathematically well-defined
did not make any sense.
Jim Bromer
---
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
that the sum of the probabilities can be computed is not provable.
But I could be wrong.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https
. And in
fact, there is no way to determine that what the function would compute
would be in any way useful for the sort of things that you guys keep talking
about.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Abram Demski abramdem
.) Notice that this example would not
necessarily be so obvious (a definitive event) using a camera, because there
are a number of ways that an illusion (of some kind) could end up as a data
event.
I will try to reply to the rest of your message sometime later.
Jim Bromer
about computability, but I
will start a new thread and just mention the relation to this thread.
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim,
Yes this is true provable: there is no way to compute a correct error
bound such that it converges to 0
will try to come up with some examples.
Jim Bromer
---
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
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if you refined your model until it was just right, you would have only
caught up to everyone else with a solution to a narrow AI problem.
I did not mean that you would just have a solution to a narrow AI problem
argument.
I want to add one more thing to this in a few days.
Jim Bromer
---
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
into a complex of other ideas that are
strongly related to it.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
PS-- I am not denying that statistics is applied probability theory. :)
When I say they are different, what I mean is that saying I'm going to use
can deal with flexible outlines/schema or they can't. If they
can't then AGI is probably impossible. If they can, then AGI is probably
possible.
I think that we both agree that creativity and imagination is absolutely
necessary aspects of intelligence.
Jim Bromer
I meant,
I think that we both agree that creativity and imagination are absolutely
necessary aspects of intelligence.
of course!
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner
tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote
concepts but they could
begin to instantiate the kind of freeform approach that you are proposing.
Are you sure you are not saying that programs can't handle concepts unless
we do exactly what you are suggesting that we should do. Because a lot of
us say that.
Jim Bromer
right, you would have only caught up to
everyone else with a solution to a narrow AI problem.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been trying to figure out how to score hypotheses. Do you guys have
any constructive ideas about how to define
are also arguing that they
are wrong.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
--
*From:* Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Wed, July 7, 2010 6:40:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Solomonoff Induction is Not Universal and
Probability
of his mathematical
experiments of using a Turing simulator to see what a finite iteration of
all possible programs of a given length would actually look like.
I will finish this later.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Abram,
Solomoff Induction would
with examples
from the particulars (of the abstractions)? How could those abstract
principles be reliably defined so that they aren't too simplistic?
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
The proof is based on the diagonal argument of Cantor, but it might be
considered as variation of Cantor's diagonal argument. There can be no one
to one *mapping of the computation to an usage* as the computation
approaches
Solomonoff Induction is not a mathematical conjecture. We can talk about a
function which is based on all mathematical functions, but since we cannot
define that as a mathematical function it is not a realizable function.
---
agi
Archives:
wrong).
Jim Bromer
---
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=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered
can think for yourself
you can still make mistakes. So if anyone has actually tried writing a
program to output all possible programs (up to some feasible point) on a
Turing Machine simulator, let me know how it went.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https
, the chances
that the next digit will be 0 will be fairly high thanks to boring programs
which just output lots of zeros. (Not sure why you mention the idea that it
might be .5? This sounds like no induction rather than dim induction...)
--Abram
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Jim Bromer
with AGI
and compression efficiencies.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
But, a more interesting question is, given that the first digits are 000,
what are the chances that the next digit will be 1? Dim Induction will
report
possibilities and that seems to be an important
and necessary method in research (and in planning).
Jim Bromer
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
You can't assume a priori that the diagonal argument is not relevant.
When I say infinite
will often interpret events according to the
projections of their primary concerns onto their observations.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
to be considered more carefully by someone
capable of dealing with complex mathematical problems that involve the
legitimacy of claims between infinite to infinite mappings.
Jim Bromer
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim, to address all of your points
of every theory that is put forward. The one test that we can make is
whether or not some method that is being presented has some reliability in
our programs which constitute mini experiments. Logic and probability pass
the smell test, even though we know that our use of them in AGI is not
ideal.
Jim
narrow AI (for
example) should be the preferred child of computer science just because the
theorems of narrow AI are so much better at predicting their (narrow) events
than the theorems of AGI are at comprehending their (more
complicated) events.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
Jim, what evidence do you have that Occam's Razor or algorithmic
information theory is wrong,
Also, what does this have to do with Cantor's diagonalization argument? AIT
considers only the countably infinite set of
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.comwrote:
Jim, what evidence do you have that Occam's Razor or algorithmic
information theory is wrong,
Also, what does this have to do with Cantor's
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
There cannot be a one to one correspondence to the representation of
the shortest program to produce a string and the strings that they produce.
This means that if the consideration of the hypotheses were to be put
not
conclude that you understand what it means to say that Cantor's diagonal
argument was mathematically correct. (However, I am not a mathematician and
I might be wrong in some ways.)
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
use of concepts like this and then appealing to a
reasonable right to be understood *as you intended*, you can certainly use
this kind of metaphor.
That's my opinion.
Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
I'd like opinions on terminology here
objects move in patchy patchwork ways or in unpredictable
patterns.
Jim Bromer
---
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
. For example, David never talked about distinguishing between
animate and inanimate objects (in the sense of the term 'animate' that Mike
is using the words,) and his reference was only made to an graphics example
to present the idea that he was talking about.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM
that
are not initially understood. While this is -clearly- a human problem, it
is a much more severe problem for contemporary AGI.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify
is the key to determining whether a method is overly
simplistic (or as in AIXI) based on an overly simplistic definition
of insight. Would this method work in discovering the possibilities of a
potentially more complex IO data environment like those we would expect to
find using AGI?
Jim Bromer
on a primary
principle of over simplification (as differentiated from a method that does
not start with a rule that eliminates the very potential of possibilities as
a *general* rule of intelligence) shows that you don't fully understand the
problem.
Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David
. That is the core issue.
Jim Bromer
---
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=8660244-6e7fb59c
about one thing. Constantly testing your
ideas with experiments is important, and if I ever gain any traction in
-anything- that I am doing, I will begin doing some AGI experiments again.
Jim Bromer
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive
1 - 100 of 267 matches
Mail list logo
