I think I decided pretty quickly that I don't know any words starting
with foml.
I don't know if this is a clue
On 7/28/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like you have some valid points, but I cannot help but point
out a problem with your question. It seems like any system for
kinds of not knowing. :|
On 7/28/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I decided pretty quickly that I don't know any words starting
with foml.
I don't know if this is a clue
On 7/28/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like you have some valid points, but I cannot
You will probably never encounter the fomlepung question again, so the fact
that you
don't know what it means will become less and less important and eventually it
will drop
off the end of the list.
Does it email you when this occurs?
xD
On 7/28/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I don't feel like getting into an argument about whether my ideas are nutty
or not.
My comment was probably not well thought-out. This Google Alert I've
got for 'artificial intelligence' returns all kinds of stuff, enough
to make me cynical. It seems to me that if you've written any code at
I apologize: 1/16. Which, to be fair, is half as many, and somewhat
diminishes the point I was trying to make. ,_,
On 8/3/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, in the spirit of scientific objectivity, I just did a search for
the word stupid in all
of the 811 messages that I have ever
The Chinese Room concept became more palatable to me when I started
putting the emphasis on nese and not on room. /Chinese/ Room, not
Chinese /Room/. I don't know why this is.
I think it changes the implied meaning from a room where Chinese
happens to be spoken, to a room for the
Honestly I never liked the Chinese Room either. I was reading this
sci-fi novella online one time about Europa I think, or it could have
been a Vinge novel, anyway some Chinese Rooms showed up in that and I
got mad as hell.
On 8/5/08, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither of those
Seriously, I'm only venturing a personal opinion but I've never even
especially cared for Chinese Rooms.
On 8/7/08, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yep.. isn't it amazing how long a thread is becoming based on an experiment
that has no significance?
On 8/6/08, Steve Richfield
But, I suggest, if you examine them, these are all actually humanoid - clear
adaptations
of human intelligence. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that AGI-ers often
*talk* as if
they are developing, or could develop, a truly non-human intelligence - a
brain that
could think in *fundamentally*
Yes. An electronic mind need never forget important facts. It'd enjoy
instant recall and on-demand instantaneous binary-precision arithmetic
and all the other upshots of the substrate. On the other hand it
couldn't take, say, morphine!
---
agi
Archives:
It's me again, electronic minds of any architecture would also have
superior extensibility and open-endedness compared to biological ones.
The behaviours embarked on by such a mind could be incomprehensible to
the humans its mind was modelled on.
I'm sure I'm right about this.
On 8/9/08, Eric
These have profound impacts on AGI design. First, AIXI is (provably) not
computable,
which means there is no easy shortcut to AGI. Second, universal intelligence
is not
computable because it requires testing in an infinite number of environments.
Since
there is no other well accepted test of
Stupid fundamentalist troll garbage
On 8/22/08, Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just discovered that I made a very obvious blunder on my theory
about Logical Satisfiability last November. It was a, what was I
thinking, kind of error. No sooner did I discover this error a
couple of
of
thing that got people wondering a month ago whether moderation is necessary
on this list. If we're all adults, moderation shouldn't be necessary.
Jim, do us all a favor and don't respond to that, as tempting as it may be.
Terren
--- On Sat, 8/23/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stupid
I kind of feel this way too. It should be easy to get neural nets
embedded in VR to achieve the intelligence of say magpies, or finches.
But the same approaches you might use, top-down ones, may not scale to
human level.
Given a 100x increase in workstation capacity I don't see why we can't
start
Is friendliness really so context-dependent? Do you have to be human
to act friendly at the exception of acting busy, greedy, angry, etc? I
think friendliness is a trait we project onto things pretty readily
implying it's wired at some fundamental level. It comes from the
social circuits, it's
: [agi] The
Necessity of Embodiment)
Matt,
What is your opinion on Goedel machines?
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html
--Abram
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These have profound impacts on AGI design
physics so that we can use all their
technology immediately. This kind of short-circuits the grounding
problem with for instance automated research and is I think a really
compelling vision
On 8/27/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think if an artificial intelligence of length n was able
Hi,
Err ... I don't have to mention that I didn't stay dead, do I? Good.
Was this the archetypal death/rebirth experience found in for instance
tryptamine ecstacy or a real-life near-death experience?
Eric B
---
agi
Archives:
Brad, scary stuff. Dissociatives/NMDA inhibitors were secret option
number three! ;D
On 8/29/08, Jiri Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terren,
I don't think any kind of algorithmic approach, which is to say,
un-embodied, will ever result in conscious intelligence. But an embodied
agent that
A succesful AGI should have n methods of data-mining its experience
for knowledge, I think. If it should have n ways of generating those
methods or n sets of ways to generate ways of generating those methods
etc I don't know.
On 8/28/08, j.k. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/28/2008 04:47 PM, Matt
I remember Richard Dawkins saying that group selection is a lie. Maybe
we shoud look past it now? It seems like a problem.
On 8/29/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. How about this . . . . Ethics is that behavior that,
when shown by you,
makes me believe that I should facilitate your
This is a good paper. Would read it again
On 8/30/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
All who interested in such topics and are willing to endure some raw
speculative trains of thought,
may be interested in an essay I recently posted on goal-preservation in
strongly self-modifying
I totally agree with this guy. I don't want to be accused of going too
far myself but I think he's being too conservative.
On 8/31/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir,
At great risk of stepping in where angels fear to tread...
This is an IMPORTANT discussion which several
Hey look at this. I was asking about Rensselaer's work just the other
day, I think.
Second Life has a special guest: artificial intelligence: USATODAY
By Boone
USA today is running an article about en experiment being run on the
Second Life online community by researchers at Rensselaer
(Sorry for the quoted text)
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
I don't know who this is, but he has some good thought experiments
concerning the impact of AI for mobs on online games.
http://wowriot.gameriot.com/blogs/Thinking-out-loud/Artificial-intelligence-in-PvE/
---
agi
Archives:
of
smart NPC's will require a lot of adaptation of other aspects of game
design
as well...
ben g
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know who this is, but he has some good thought experiments
concerning the impact of AI for mobs on online games
I don't understand how mimicry in specific occurs without some kind of
turing-complete GA spawning a huge number of possible paths. I'm
thinking of humanoid robots mapping the movements of a human trainer
onto their motor cortex. I've certainly heard somewhere that this is
one way to do it and I
I really see a number of algorithmic breakthroughs as necessary for
the development of strong general AI but it seems like an imminent
event to me regardless. Nonetheless much of what we learn about the
brain in the meantime may be nonsense until we fundamentally grok the
mind.
--- snip ---
[1220390007] receive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bootris, invoke mathematica
[1220390013] told #love cool hand luke is like a comic heroic jesus
[1220390034] receive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bootris, solve russell's paradox
[1220390035] told #love invoke mathematica
[1220390066] receive
and watching the moods of people around it to assess its
success and modify its behaviour, it ought to be able to pass as human
without having most of the internal processes that characterize one...
I don't know if there's a lesson here.
Eric B
On 9/7/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- snip
, but it really was not finished.
Ok, that's all.
On 9/7/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I think is kind of notable is that the bot puts everything
it says, including phrases that are invented or mutated, into a
personality database or list of possible favourite phrases, then takes
six
(see: irc.racrew.us)
On 9/7/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, thanks for helping me get this off my chest, everyone. If I ever
finish the thing I'm definitely going to freshmeat it. I think this
kind of bot, which is really quite trainable, and creative to boot --
it falls back
I'd just keep a long list of high scorers for regression and
occasionally reset the high score to zero. You can add random
specimens to the population as well...
On 9/7/08, Benjamin Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a general question for those (such as Novamente) working on AGI
I've reflected that superintelligence could emerge through genetic or
pharmaceutical options before cybernetic ones, maybe by necessity. I
am really rooting for cybernetic enlightenment to guide our use of the
other two, though.
On 9/8/08, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the
You can implement a new workaround to bootstrap your organisms past
each local maximum, like catalyzing the transition from water to land
over and over. I find this leads to cheats that narrow the search in
unpredictable ways, though. This problem comes up again and again.
Maybe some kind of
Couldn't one use fine-grained collision detection in something like
OpenSim to feed tactile information into a neural net via a simulated
nervous system? The extent to which a simulated organism 'actually
feels' is certainly a point on a scale or a spectrum, just as it would
appear to be with
I've seen humour modelled as a form of mental dissonance, when an
expectation is defied, especially a grave one. It may arise, then, as
a higher-order recognition of bizarreness in the overall state of the
mind at that point. Humour seems to me to be somehow fundamental to
intelligence, rather
for biochemical states revealed intellectually
as inappropriate?
A deep subject!
On 9/10/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen humour modelled as a form of mental dissonance, when an
expectation is defied, especially a grave one. It may arise, then, as
a higher-order recognition
I think the whole idea of a semantic layer is to provide the kind of
mechanism for abstract reasoning that evolution seems to have built
into the human brain. You could argue that those faculties are
acquired during one's life, using only a weighted neural net (brain),
but it seems reasonable to
Hmm. My bot mostly repeats what it hears.
bot Monie: haha. r u a bot ?
bot cyberbrain: not to mention that in a theory complex enough with
a large enough number of parameters. one can interpret anything.
even things that are completely physically inconsistent with each
other. i suggest actually
Ok, most of its replies here seem to be based on the first word of
what it's replying to. But it's really capable of more lateral
connections.
wijnand yeah i use it to add shortcuts for some menu functions i use a lot
bot wijnand: TOMACCO!!!
On 9/21/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm
Note that $1 quadrillion is only a few orders of magnitude more
expensive than the war in Iraq. It could well be less than the price
of bringing democracy to every podunk and backwater on the globe!
On 9/21/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On
CREATIVITY MACHINE
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4007105149032380914ei=PvTXSJONKI_8-gHFhOi-Agq=artificial+lifevt=lf
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify
Creativity machine: http://www.imagination-engines.com/cm.htm
Six layers, though? Perhaps the result is magic!
On 9/22/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATIVITY MACHINE
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid
Results such as these are exactly why the Creativity Machine has been heralded
by top
NASA officials as AI's best bet and the primary tool for building the AI
predicted by Kurzweil and others in 30 years, now!
:O
On 9/22/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Creativity machine: http
-Original Message-
From: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:40 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [agi] Perceptrons Movie
CREATIVITY MACHINE
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4007105149032380914ei=PvTXSJONKI_8-g
HFhOi-Agq=artificial+lifevt
Supreme
On 9/22/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are Geoffrey Hinton's neural nets available as a library somewhere?
I'd like to try them myself if possible. What I'm doing now closely
approximates character
I am trying to recover an old GMail account right now, and I agree.
On 9/23/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Mon, 9/22/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My proposal: Much like the College of Science at nearly all univesities
was subsequently chopped up into
OK, we're done with AGI, time to move on to discussion of psychic powers 8-D
Lacking as they do a pineal gland, how could AI have such an ability?
Perhaps an uplink to HAARP, or some kind of a magnetron?
On 9/24/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we have
Ben == AGI-author s1
Dude
An REG might work as a psychic receiver, closing the loop. But do we
want it to have that power?
On 9/24/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use a REG unit:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html
:)
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, we're
The purpose of YKY's invocation of Helen Keller is interestingly at
odds with the usage that appears in the Jargon File.
Helen Keller mode /n./ 1. State of a hardware or software system that
is deaf, dumb, and blind, i.e., accepting no input and generating no
output, usually due to an infinite
Having a vision-assisted training process would be extremely
compelling. Then the user can provide information relevant to
comprehending a scene as well as adding word/object associations.
Robust sight and sound processing are still kind of a frontier for
software, I think. A little good work in
Thanks! Fascinating
On 9/29/08, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It uses something called MontyLingua. Does anyone know anything about
this? There's a site at http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7933698775159827395ei=Z1rhSJz7CIvw-QHQyNkCq=nltkvt=lf
NLTK video ;O
On 9/29/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David,
Thanks for reply. Like so many other things, though, working out how we
understand texts is central to understanding GI - and
Extracting meaning from text requires context-sensitivity to do
correctly. Natural language parsers necessarily don't reason about
things. An AGI whose natural-language interface was abstracted via
some good parser could make suppositions about the constructs it
returned by interpreting them
*in an ,_,
On 9/29/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Extracting meaning from text requires context-sensitivity to do
correctly. Natural language parsers necessarily don't reason about
things. An AGI whose natural-language interface was abstracted via
some good parser could make
Well, for the purpose of creating the first human-level AGI, it seems
important **to**
wire in humanlike bias about space and time ... this will greatly ease the
task of
teaching the system to use our language and communicate with us effectively...
The same thing occurred to me while browsing
Really, really comprehensive. What stage would you say your work is at today?
On 10/5/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings All
I am pleased to announce the upcoming expanded edition of my original
reference work
A Diagnostic Classification of the Emotions of which I serve as
I think it's normal for tempers to flare during a depression. This
kind of technology really pays for itself. The only thing that matters
is the code
Eric B
On 10/12/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No idea, Mentifex ... I haven't filtered out any of your messages (or
anyone's) ...
Hugh Loebner talks AI
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/11/2137200
I may have written my signature twice on the OpenCog list, earlier
today. I'm going to try to not do that. Otherwise I have nothing to
report
---
agi
Archives:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's odd. Maybe you should run Windows :-(
No. You should not run Windows
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
An AI that is twice as smart as a human can make no more progress than 2
humans.
Actually I'll argue that we can't make predictions about what a
greater-than-human intelligence would do. Maybe the summed
intelligence of 2 humans would be sufficient to do the work of a
dozen. Maybe
I suppose it's a bit ambiguous. There's computer modelling of mind, and then
there's the implementation of an actual mind using actual computation, then
there's the implementation of a brain using computation, in which a mind may
be said to be operating. All sorts of misdirection.
I think IBM is
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am aware of 'blue brain'. It, and the distributed processor in the other
link are still COMP and therefore subject to all the arguments I have been
making, and therefore not on the path to real AGI. It's interesting
I also agree with Vladimir, mailing list format is more convenient and more fun.
On 10/15/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also agree the list should focus on specific approaches and not on
hifalutin denials of achievability. I don't know why non-human,
specifically electronic
I also agree the list should focus on specific approaches and not on
hifalutin denials of achievability. I don't know why non-human,
specifically electronic intelligence is such a hot button issue for
some folks. It's like they'd be happier if it never happened. But why?
On 10/15/08, Terren
would compel you to use such a tone?
For my part I'd like to see less trolls fed, and more bugs squished
On 10/15/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also agree with Vladimir, mailing list format is more convenient and more
fun.
On 10/15/08, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also
but I don't want to discuss the details about the
algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not,
Hearing this makes my teeth gnash. GO AND IMPLEMENT THEM. THEN TELL US
On 10/15/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Hart wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM,
One day the process of discovery will be automated, and all we'll have
to deal with will be graphs and charts and other abstract
representations of aggregated data, not reams and reams of undigested
text.
Until that point I guess it's wise to do whatever you can. I for one
welcome our
Honestly, if the idea is to wave our hands at one another's ideas then
let's at least see something on the table. I'm happy to discuss my
work with natural language parsing and mood evaluation for
low-bandwidth human mimicry, for instance, because it has amounted to
thousands of lines of
Is anybody on this list smart and/or knowledgeable enough to come up with a
formula for the following (I am not):
I don't think I'm the person to answer this for you. But I do have
some insights.
Given N neural net nodes, what is the number A of unique node assemblies
(i.e., separate subsets of
Is the agiri.org forum a PHPBB? That's what mail2forum is for. It
doesn't seem worthwhile reimplementing both the forum and the list if
not.
It looks kind of like ultimatebb to me ._.
On 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This widget seems to integrate mailing lists and forums
in
Even if he wants fault tolerance (from cell damage) through redundancy?
Why model neuron attrition? These kinds of calculations are normally
done in production mode, that is, within computing setups not prone to
component failure. Maybe you're thinking of neural nets that map onto
a large number
Good to see someone is still up. Can you link your paper again? I
can't find the URL.
Eric B
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60
:O
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
It looks like if Sim City isn't a lie then machines -will- bootstrap
themselves to sentience but -will not- reach human intelligence. I'm
not too sure what this means. Maybe that we'll never see a faithful
duplication of a characteristically human distribution of abilities in
a machine. But I
I've been on some message boards where people only ever came back with
a formula or a correction. I didn't contribute a great deal but it is
a sight for sore eyes. We could have an agi-tech and an agi-philo list
and maybe they'd merit further recombination (more lists) after that.
I've been thinking. agi-phil might suffice. Although it isn't as explicit.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been on some message boards where people only ever came back with
a formula or a correction. I didn't contribute a great deal but it is
a sight
No, surely this is mostly outside the purview of the AGI list. I'm
reading some of this material and not getting a lot out of it. There
are channels on freenode for this stuff. But we have got to agree on
something if we are going to do anything. Can animals do science? They
can not.
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that there
is).
This is pretty profound. I never saw Ben Goertzel abolish the
scientific method. I think he explained that its implementation is
intractable, with reference
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI.
But MW and I have not agreed on anything.
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination,
and creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This
I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them.
s/as I/inasmuch as I/
,_,
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
My apologies if I've misconstrued you. Regardless of any fault, the basic
point was/is important. Even if a considerable percentage of science's
conclusions are v. hard, there is no definitive scientific method for
reaching them .
I think I understand.
I think I see what's on the table here. Does all this mean a Bayes
net, properly motivated, could be capable of performing scientific
inquiry? Maybe in combination with a GA that tunes itself to maximize
adaptive mutations in the input based on scores from the net, which
seeks superior product
Post #101 :V
Somehow this hit the wrong thread :|
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
Post #101 :V
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by
Forget consensus! I don't even see a discussion forming. This is all
quite long and impenetrable. What have we learned here? If possible I
want to catch up.
Eric B
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
Due to a characteristic paucity of datatypes, all powerful, and a
terse, readable syntax, I usually recommend Python for any project
that is just out the gate. It's my favourite way by far at present to
mangle huge tables. By far!
---
agi
Archives:
Just a great way to deal with data. I'm barely into list comprehension
yet and I still usually can't believe what I can squirt through a
single line of Python code. Just big big transforms that would be
whole blocks in most languages. In many instances it's v. handy
I know I've expressed frustration with this thread in the past. But I
don't want to discourage its development. If someone wants to hit me
with a summary off-list maybe I can contribute something _
---
agi
Archives:
I'll even go so far as to use myself as an example. I can easily do C++
(since I've done so in the past) but all the baggage around it make me
consider it not worth my while. I certainly won't hesitate to use what is
learned on that architecture but I'll be totally shocked if you aren't
MW, mine was an editorial reply to what struck me as a superficial
pronouncement on a subject not amenable to treatment so cursory. But I
like it less now, and I apologize.
Eric B
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
Cause is a time-bound notion. These processes work both ways in time
-- does a virus cause a disease? Or is the existence of a host a more
significant factor?
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
(Note, I also am unfamiliar with the absence of formal causation from
rigorous scientific fields. So I guessed)
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
I actually emailed a gentleman at Sandia one time asking why don't
they use their molecular dynamics setup to extrapolate novel instances
and classes of high-temperature superconductor etc. What I came away
with is you really want to be simulating sub-molecular interactions in
order to extrapolate
This was a good read, bgoertzel! Blog well done :D
On 11/8/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-search-of-machines-of-loving-grace.html
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL
HATED IT
On 11/14/08, Olie Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mmmm... Chaoglate-chip cookie processing!
On 11/6/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A report about research to build chaotic logic:
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.800
There are procedures in place for experimenting on humans. And the
biologies of people and animals are orthogonal! Much of this will be
simulated soon
On 11/17/08, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
