2008/8/15 Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The training issue is a real one, but presumably over time electronics that
would be part of these wetware/hardware combination brains could be
developed to train the wetware/hardware machines --- under the control
guidance of external systems at the
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.02/warwick.html
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.02/warwick.html
An interesting perspective. Instead of brain tissue controlling a machine, we
have a brain wanting to be controlled by a machine.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I am looking for a system that is me.
You, like everyone else's me, has it's limitations. So there is a
difference between the potential of the system and the actual system.
This point of stressing potentiality rather
That made more sense to me. Responses follow.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I am looking for a system that is me.
You, like everyone else's me, has it's limitations. So there
Our ability to think about abstractions and extrapolations off of
abstractions comes because we are able to create game boundaries
around the systems that we think about. So yes you can talk about
infinite resources and compare it to the domain of the lambda
calculus, but this kind of thinking is
I don't think the problems of a self-referential paradox is
significantly more difficult than the problems of general reference.
Not only are there implicit boundaries, some of which have to be
changed in an instant as the conversation develops, there are also
multiple levels of
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The paradox seems trivial, of course. I generally agree with your
analysis (describing how we consider the sentence, take into account
its context, and so on. But the big surprise to logicians was that the
paradox is not
On 8/13/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:14 AM, rick the ponderer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for replying YKY
Is the logic learning you are talking about inductive logic programming.
If
so, isn't ilp basically a search through the space of logic
On 8/15/08, rick the ponderer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/13/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:14 AM, rick the ponderer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks for replying YKY
Is the logic learning you are talking about inductive logic programming.
If
so,
(1) STUDY FINDS THAT SLEEP SELECTIVELY PRESERVES EMOTIONAL MEMORIES
http://www.physorg.com/news137908693.html
(2) BIG-BRAINED ANIMALS [BIRDS] EVOLVE FASTER
http://www.physorg.com/news138003096.html
(3) BRAIN RULES
Here's a guy selling a book/DVD (Brain Rules) about how to improve your
mental
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:31 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To use Thorton's example, he demontrated that a checkerboard pattern can
be learned using logic easily, but it will drive a NN learner crazy.
Note that neural networks are a broad subject and don't only include
12 matches
Mail list logo
