You're saying I can do it.. without explaining at all how. Sort of a miracle
happens here.
Crucially, you're quite right that if you have a machine that replicates the
human eye and brain and how it processes the Cafe Wall illusion, then you will
still see the illusion.
The problem is you
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
snip
You guys probably think this is all rather peripheral and unimportant - they
don't teach this in AI courses, so it can't be important.
No. It means you're on the wrong list.
But if you can't see things whole, then you can't see or
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
Hi Jim,
According to the Wikipedia article on SAT Solvers, there are extensions for
quantified formulas, and first order logic. Otherwise SAT solvers operate
principally on sets of symbolic propositions. Agreed?
I believe that SAT solvers are not cognitively plausible. More precisely, I
You guys probably think this is all rather peripheral and unimportant - they
don't teach this in AI courses, so it can't be important.
Please don't assume what I'm thinking. Your points are very important.
Unfortunately, they are important in the Robert Fulghum sense.
The problem is you
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
I'm counting on you Lord
Don't leave me in destitution
Prove that you love
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
I was not and am not arguing that anything is impossible. By definition - for
me - if the brain can do it, a computer or some kind of machine should be able
to do it eventually.
But you have to start by recognizing what neither you nor anyone else is doing
- that an AGI must be able to see in
Mike Tintner wrote:
I was not and am not arguing that anything is impossible. By definition
- for me - if the brain can do it, a computer or some kind of
machine should be able to do it eventually.
But you have to start by recognizing what neither you nor anyone else is
doing - that an AGI
Richard: What *exactly* do you mean by an AGI must be able to see in
wholes? My point is that you cannot make criticisms at that level of
vagueness.
I'll give the detailed explanation that I think you're looking for, within
a few days.
P.S. Maybe then you'll be able to return the favour,
Richard: I already did publish a paper doing exactly that ... haven't you
read it?
Yep. And I'm still mystified. I should have added that I have a vague idea
of what you mean by complex system and its newness, but no idea of why it
will solve any unsolved problem of AGI, and absolutely no
Hi Mike,
I'm going to make one last try and then punt again.
Did you look up Robert Fulghum?
Did you get the fact that once you generalize your idea enough, we're all
in complete agreement -- but that *a lot* of your specific facts are just plain
wrong (to whit -- the phrase
Is it running inside Second Life already or it's another enviroment? (sorry
I don't know SL very well)
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing has been publicly released yet, it's still at the
research-prototype stage ... I'll announce when we have some
We haven't launched anything public yet (and I'm not sure when we will)
but the prototype experiment shown in that machinima was done in Second
Life, yeah ...
We have also experimented with other virtual worlds such as Multiverse...
Ben G
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Rafael C.P. [EMAIL
Yes. SAT solvers act on sets of logical symbolic propositions. This
can be effectively applied to logically closed (you know what I am
getting at) systems as well. Inductive systems are not logically
closed because new ideas may change the logical relationships of known
theories. Also, any such
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
Hi Ben
Hereby my proposed additional topics / references for your wiki - aimed
at the more computer scienty/mathematically challenged (like me):
Sorry don't have the time to add directly to the wiki
AGI ARCHITECTURES (EXPANDS on the COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES section)
Questions about any Would-Be
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
Finally be selective on whom you engage with on the AGI list ;-)
This should have been first.:-)
- Original Message -
From: Jean-paul Van Belle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Instead of an AGI textbook
Hi Ben
On 26/03/2008, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
A lot of students email me asking me what to read to get up to speed on AGI.
So I started a wiki page called Instead of an AGI Textbook,
http://www.agiri.org/wiki/Instead_of_an_AGI_Textbook#Computational_Linguistics
I've
This are just some controversial tips/inspirations:
Warning: Don't read it if you do not believe that sensory and AGI go
together or if you are skeptical. Just ignore it.
What to detect?
detect inregulaties and store them
analysis
complexity
structure
evolution
memorization is about
I would suggest that symbols are more powerful than images, though less
immediate (unmitigated?) in their effect.
Images present a visual scene. They require processing to evaluate, and
what one extracts from the scene may not be what another extracts.
Their power is that they may activate
Notice how quickly the image changed. That's because you did it by
manipulating references rather than by moving around enough bits to
represent an image of one or the other kind of baseball.
The human mind does not manipulate pixels by pixels, nor even store
pixels. The mind uses feature
25 matches
Mail list logo
