Vladimir,
On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be true or
false based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary
decisions
Mike,
On 4/24/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve:What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving
much the current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung
out.My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and
direct effort
Steve,
Yes it's good to acknowledge that you recognize the importance of in-the-field
investigation and hands-on experimentation to creative problem-solving.
But you have yet - and, as you more or less indicate, everyone in AI and AGI -
has yet to show me (or, I think, the world), that they
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't
support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two.
God hypothesis is as useful as
Durk,
On 4/22/08, Kingma, D.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a nutshell (if I'm correct), your system initially requires a vast body
of knowledge. Then, you explain that its 'trick' is to use its knowledge to
solve a subject's problems, by finding out what knowledge he/she is
'missing'. This
Mark,
On 4/22/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post .
Our agreement on this reflects a shortcoming in the posting process. We
need an organization of posts that is similar to the US Patent Office's
sorting of patents, into
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than
others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where
everything that defies present explanation is simply credited to God. How
accurately reflect the world. This process is known as
science (or scientific discovery). I highly recommend it. ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Steve Richfield
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Random Thoughts on Thinking
Vladimir,
On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, some situations are more prone to superstitious learning than
others. Religious explanations are a beautiful example of this - where
Everyone BUT Mark,
On 4/24/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely expected with your low daytime body temperature. This is
a VERY common observation from low temps (people whose temperature is
stuck low). This IS easily correctable, providing a very substantial gain in
IQ. Like
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be true or
false based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary
decisions based on whatever it is that you do know. Those decisions may
reflect an
Steve Richfield wrote:
The process that we call thinking is VERY
different in various people. [...]
[...]
Any thoughts?
Steve Richfield
The post above -- real food for thought -- was the most
interesting post that I have ever read on the AGI list.
Arthur T. Murray
--
Any thoughts?
My first thought is that you put way too much in a single post . . . .
The process that we call thinking is VERY different in various people.
Or even markedly different from one occasion to the next in the same person. I
am subject to a *very*strong Seasonal Affective
13 matches
Mail list logo
