We cannot
ask Feynman, but I actually asked Deutsch. He does not only think QM
is our most basic physical reality (he thinks math and computer
science lie in quantum mechanics), but he even takes quite seriously
his theory of parallel universes! and he is not alone. Speaking by
myself, I
2008/12/1 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And, science cannot tell us whether QM or some empirically-equivalent,
wholly randomness-free theory is the right one...
If two theories give identical predictions under all circumstances
about how the real world behaves, then they are not two separate
If two theories give identical predictions under all circumstances
about how the real world behaves, then they are not two separate
theories, they are merely rewordings of the same theory. And choosing
between them is arbitrary; you may prefer one to the other because
human minds can
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, Philip Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone explain AIXI to me?
AIXI models an intelligent agent interacting with an environment as a pair of
interacting Turing machines. At each step, the agent outputs a symbol to the
environment, and the environment outputs a
I really appreciate Matt's comments about this even though I am wary
of the field. It is important to have some ideas about why the AI
problem is so hard, and that insight is best told with some
descriptive information like Matt's message. Of course, if no one is
asking why then the poster has
That was helpful. Thanks.
2008/12/1 Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, Philip Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone explain AIXI to me?
AIXI models an intelligent agent interacting with an environment as a pair of
interacting Turing machines. At each step, the agent
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The value of AIXI is not that it solves the general intelligence problem, but
rather
it explains why the problem is so hard.
It doesn't explain why it's hard (is impossible hard?). That you
can't solve a problem exactly,
Steve,
The KRAKEN paper was quite interesting, and has a LOT in common with my own
Dr. Eliza. However, I saw no mention of Dr. Eliza's secret sauce, that
boosts it from answering questions to solving problems given symptoms. The
secret sauce has two primary ingredients:
1. The syntax of
Mike,
On 12/1/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder whether you'd like to outline an additional list of
English/language's shortcomings here. I've just been reading Gary Marcus'
Kluge - he has a whole chapter on language's shortcomings, and it would be
v. interesting to compare
Steve,
Thanks. I was just looking for a systematic, v basic analysis of the problems
language poses for any program, which I guess mainly come down to multiplicity -
multiple
-word meanings
-word pronunciations
-word spellings
-word endings
-word fonts
-word/letter layout/design
-languages
Mike,
More than multiplicity is the issue of discrete-point semantics vs.
continuous real-world possibilities. Multiplicity could potentially be
addressed by requiring users to put (clarifications) following unclear words
(e.g. in response to diagnostic messages to clarify input). Dr. Eliza
Ed, they used to combine ritalin with lsd for psychotherapy. It
assists in absorbing insights achieved from psycholitic doses, which
is a term for doses that are not fully psychedelic. Those are edifying
on their own but are less organized. I don't know if you can get this
in a clinical setting
12 matches
Mail list logo
