Jim Bromer wrote:
Ben G wrote: ...
...
Concerning beliefs and scientific rationalism: Beliefs are the basis
of all thought. To imply that religious belief might be automatically
different from rational beliefs is naïve. However, I think there is
an advantage in defining what a rational thought
I am going to try to summarize what I have said.
With God's help, I may have discovered a path toward a method to
achieve a polynomial time solution to Logical Satisfiability, and so
from this vantage point I have started to ask the question of whether
or not a feasible SAT solver would actually
]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:46:30 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability...Get used to it.
I am going to try to summarize what I have said.
With God's help, I may have discovered a path toward a method to
achieve a polynomial time solution to Logical Satisfiability
PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:46:30 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability...Get used to it.
I am going to try to summarize what I have said.
With God's help, I may have discovered a path toward a method to
achieve a polynomial time solution
Jim Bromer wrote:
I am going to try to summarize what I have said.
With God's help, I may have discovered a path toward a method to
achieve a polynomial time solution to Logical Satisfiability, and so
from this vantage point I have started to ask the question of whether
or not a feasible SAT
Jim Bromer writes: With God's help, I may have discovered a path toward a
method to achieve a polynomial time solution to Logical Satisfiability
If you want somebody to talk about the solution, you're
more likely to get helpful feedback elsewhere as it is not a
topic that most of us on this
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:46:30 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability...Get used to it.
I am going to try to summarize what I have said.
With God's help, I may have discovered a path
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this talk about the Lord and SAT solvers has me thinking up variations
to the Janis Joplin song
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/janisjoplin/mercedesbenz.html
Oh Lord, won't you buy me
a polynomial-time SAT solution
Thank you for your politeness and your insightful comments. I am
going to quit this group because I have found that it is a pretty bad
sign when the moderator mocks an individual for his religious beliefs.
FWIW, I wasn't joking about your algorithm's putative
divine inspiration in my role
Really though: if you're going to post messages in forums populated
by scientific rationalists, claiming divine inspiration for your ideas,
you
really gotta expect **at minimum** some good-natured ribbing... !
And (speaking from crispy experience :-) if you try to create a new
religion
work.
It's just that you're performing the equivalent of presenting a biology paper
at a physics convention.:-)
- Original Message -
From: Jim Bromer
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability...Get used
Message -
From: Jim Bromer
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Logical Satisfiability...Get used to it.
On the contrary, Vladimir is completely correct in requesting that the
discussion go elsewhere: this has no relevance to the AGI
4) If you think some supernatural being placed an insight in your mind,
you're
probably better off NOT mentioning this when discussing the insight in a
scientific forum, as it will just cause your idea to be taken way less
seriously
by a vast majority of scientific-minded people...
Awesome
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4) If you think some supernatural being placed an insight in your mind,
you're
probably better off NOT mentioning this when discussing the insight in a
scientific forum, as it will just cause your idea to be taken way
Jim Bromer wrote:
On the contrary, Vladimir is completely correct in requesting that the
discussion go elsewhere: this has no relevance to the AGI list, and
there are other places where it would be pertinent.
Richard Loosemore
If Ben doesn't want me to continue, I will
Jim,
Could you keep P=NP discussion off this list? There are plenty of
powerful SAT solvers already, so if there is a path towards AGI that
needs a SAT solver, they can be used in at least small-scale
prototypes, and thus the absence of scalable SAT solver is not a
bottleneck at the moment. P=NP
Hey Jim,
Glad to hear you're making some headway on such an important and challenging
problem!
Don't read to much in to Vladimir's response... he's probably just having a
hard day or something :p If it's fair game to talk about all the other
narrow-AI topics on this list, talking about SAT is
17 matches
Mail list logo
