On 10/7/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is having the unfortunate side-effect that as each point is
presented, you are interpreting it and (especially) running on ahead
with it in directions that do not have any relation to my argument.
'Running ahead' part can be incorrect
It's probably worth pointing out that Conway's Life is not only Turing
universal but that it can host self-replicating machines. In other words, an
infinite randomly initialized Life board will contain living creatures
which will multiply and grow, and ultimately come to dominate the entire
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[rest of post and other recent ones agreed with]
It remains to be seen whether replicating Life patterns could evolve to become
intelligent.
No formal proof, but informally: definitely no. Our universe has all
sorts of special properties
On 10/7/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[rest of post and other recent ones agreed with]
It remains to be seen whether replicating Life patterns could evolve to
become
intelligent.
No formal proof, but informally:
On 10/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, given that it's Turing complete, it should have all forms of
intelligent entities too (probably including us), they just may be
non-trivial to observe.
Oh potentially yes, they just won't spontaneously evolve from the
primordial slime
That's interesting perspective - it defines a class of series
generators (where for example in GoL one element is the whole board on
given tick) that generate intelligence through evolution in
time-efficient way, and poses a question: what is the simplest
instance of this class?
On 10/7/07,
On 10/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting perspective - it defines a class of series
generators (where for example in GoL one element is the whole board on
given tick) that generate intelligence through evolution in
time-efficient way, and poses a question: what is
I'm not convinced, primarily because I would have said the same thing about
actual bacteria vs humans if I didn't have the counterexample.
One human generation time is 100,000 bacteria gen times -- and it only takes
about 133 generations of bacteria to consume the the entire mass of the
On Sunday 07 October 2007 01:55:14 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
On 10/7/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting perspective - it defines a class of series
generators (where for example in GoL one element is the whole board on
given tick) that generate intelligence
It depends on acceptance of self-sampling assumption (SSA), which is a
rather arbitrary thing: why for example it's considered plausible to
see yourself selected from set of all humans, and not for example all
primates or all same-gender-humans? I only see it possible to select
worlds where some
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not convinced, primarily because I would have said the same thing about
actual bacteria vs humans if I didn't have the counterexample.
Granted, all I have is armchair reasoning, and it's certainly not
unreasonable for you to fail to be
RESTORE OCT-2007.SAV
On 10/7/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the same kind of reasoning that leads Bostrom et al to believe that we
are probably living in a simulation, which may be turned off at any ti
Exactly :)
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
Edward W. Porter wrote:
So is the following understanding correct?
If you have two statements
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
And assuming you know nothing more about any of the three
terms in both these
William Pearson wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question for you, Will.
Without loss of generality, I can change my use of Game of Life to a new
system called GoL(-T) which is all of the possible GoL instantiations
EXCEPT the tiny subset that contain
On 10/7/07, Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... logic is unsuited for conversation...
what a great quote
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
Imagine a skin of self-reinforcing patterns. A simple version would be immune
to a change in any one cell, more complicated versions would automatically
replicate to repair damage involving two, three, four, or more cells. Inside,
complicated structures could replicate without being all that
Charles,
What you said is correct for most formal logics formulating binary
deduction, using model-theoretic semantics. However, Edward was
talking about the categorical logic of NARS, though he put the
statements in English, and omitted the truth values, which may caused
some misunderstanding.
17 matches
Mail list logo
