It might on the other hand be a theory, which, as Steve suggests, might be viable 50 years ago.
I meant it could be a theory which might be viable 50 years from now of course! Jim Bromer On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan, > Well I will take the reasonable parts of the criticisms to try to make the > final copy a little more readable. > > As far as it is probably more drivel I can say that I am often very > skeptical of the viability of the subjects under discussion in this group > but I always got the feeling that the discussion of unproven theories about > AGI is kind of like the real purpose of the discussion group. > > I am one of the few posters in this group (the only poster in this group?) > who acknowledges that his ideas might not work. And if they don't then > this might be a lot of drivel. It might on the other hand be a theory, > which, as Steve suggests, might be viable 50 years ago. However, if I > can't get my ideas to work in some limited form within a reasonable amount > of time then it will strongly suggest that they would not be viable without > a lot of fix-ups even 50 years from now. But if there is something viable > in these ideas I should be able to get some kind of demo within a couple of > years. It would be limited, what I call AGi. > > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
