Richard,
On 6/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am using cognitive science as a basis for AGI development,
If my fear of paradigm shifting proves to be unfounded, then you may well
be right. However, I would be surprised if there weren't a LOT of paradigm
shifting going on.
Steve Richfield wrote:
Richard,
On 6/8/08, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I
basically said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive
science does not exist.
Quite the
Ben wrote:
I think that AGI, right now, could also be analyzed as having four
main approaches
1-- logic-based ... including a host of different logic formalisms
2-- neural net/ brain simulation based ... including some biologically
quasi-realistic systems and some systems that are more formal
Jim, Ben, et al,
On 6/10/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben wrote:
I think that AGI, right now,
The thing that stumbled me when I first got here, is understanding just
what is meant here by AGI. It is NOT the process that goes on behind our
eyeballs, as that is clearly an emergent
Bob,
On 6/8/08, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/8 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you
and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have
already processed the arguments you're making and found
Matthias,
On 6/8/08, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In short, most people on this
list appear to be interested only in HOW to straight-line program an AGI
(with the implicit assumption that we operate anything at all like we
appear
to operate), but not in WHAT to program,
Ben,
On 6/8/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be
first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson
... to whose satisfaction? Here on this forum, there are only two groups of
judges:
1. The people who are actually writing the code,
Richard,
On 6/8/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You also failed to address my own previous response to you: I basically
said that you make remarks as if the whole of cognitive science does not
exist.
Quite the contrary. My point is that not only does cognitive science fail
- Original Message
From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3-- integrative ... which itself is a very broad category with a lot
of heterogeneity ... including e.g. systems composed of wholly
distinct black boxes versus systems that have intricate real-time
feedbacks between different
Hi Steve,
I'm thinking about the Texai bootstrap dialog system, and in particular about
adding grammar rules and vocabulary for the utterance Compile a class.
Cheers.
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Artificial Intelligence Researcher
http://texai.org/blog
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin,
: [agi] Pearls Before Swine...
Hi Steve,
I'm thinking about the Texai bootstrap dialog system, and in particular about
adding grammar rules and vocabulary for the utterance Compile a class.
Cheers.
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Artificial Intelligence Researcher
http://texai.org/blog
Steve,
Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you
and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have
already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting.
And we have already gotten tired of arguing those same points, back in
our
Steve,
A quick response for now. I was going to reply to an earlier post of yours, in
which you made the most important point for me:
The difficulties in proceeding in both neuroscience and AI/AGI is NOT a lack
of technology or clever people to apply it, but is rather a lack of
understanding
The truth is, one of the big problems in
the field is that nearly everyone working on a concrete AI system has
**their own** particular idea of how to do it, and wants to proceed
independently rather than compromising with others on various design
points. It's hardly a herd mentality -- the
2008/6/8 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Those of us w/ experience in the field have heard the objections you
and Tintner are making hundreds or thousands of times before. We have
already processed the arguments you're making and found them wanting.
I entirely agree with this response. To
The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote:
Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots,
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING?
prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html
My hair is graying so much and such a Glatze is beginning,
that I
Steve Richfield asked:
Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU
THINKING?
We're thinking Don't feed the Trolls!
_
agi | Archives http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify
Ben and Mike,
WOW, two WONDERFUL in-your-face postings that CLEARLY delimit a central AGI
issue. Since my original posting ended with a question and Ben took a shot
at the question, I would like to know a little more...
On 6/8/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those of us w/ experience
Gary Miller writes:
We're thinking Don't feed the Trolls!
Yeah, typical trollish behavior -- upon failing to stir the pot with one
approcah, start adding blanket insults. I put Steve Richfield in my killfile a
week ago or so, but I went back to the archive to read the message in question.
From: A. T. Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote:
Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots,
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING?
prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html
My hair
While the details vary widely, Mike and I were addressing the very concept
of writing code to perform functions (e.g. thinking) that apparently
develop on their own as emergent properties, and in the process foreclosing
on many opportunities, e.g. developing in variant ways to address problems
Ben: No one knows which brain functions rely on emergence to which extents
...
we're still puzzling this out even in relatively well-understood brain
regions
like visual cortex. ... But, the neural structures that carry out
object-recognition may well emerge
as a result of complex nonlinear
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own
terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to
the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My approach is: first you look at the problem of crossing domains in its own
terms - work out an ideal way to solve it - which will probably be close to
the way the mind does solve it - then think about how to implement your
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be
first overcome - Dr Samuel Johnson
-- Ben G
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My approach is: first you look at the problem
Steve Richfield wrote:
Mike Tintner, et al,
After failing to get ANY response to what I thought was an important
point (*Paradigm Shifting regarding Consciousness) *I went back through
my AGI inbox to see what other postings by others weren't getting any
responses. Mike Tintner was way
John G. Rose wrote:
[...]
Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots,
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING?
prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi
Before Goertzel came to be, I am. (a Biblical allusion in Greek :-)
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html
The above link is an
John G. Rose wrote:
Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate
some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours?
John
No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax.
http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html
and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at
28 matches
Mail list logo
