> From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ED PORTER ============>>
> I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph
> structures
> like semantic nets, are probably close to as efficient as possible given
> the
> type of connectionism they are representing and the type of computing
> that
> is to be done on them, which include, importantly, selective spreading
> activation.


Uhm have you checked this out? Is there any evidence this? It would make it
easier if this was in fact the case.


> ED PORTER ============>>
> Although I think my theory of consciousness is as good as any other I
> have
> read, it is far from certain, and far from complete, and not necessarily
> correct in every details.
> 
> I don't think the richness of human consciousness comes from a
> "minimized
> essence", but rather from the complicated full-blown richness of the
> computation inside our brains.


So there is a scaling to consciousness magnitude? And there are
consciousness properties that are stronger or weaker depending on
computational richness?

 
> Since our senses can  only sense --- and our minds can only think --- in
> terms of computation (in which I am included representation) --- at
> least at
> the moment, I cannot think of what it would mean for something to not be
> computation, except perhaps nothingness, which we can think of as the
> absence of computation.


Nothingness or maybe big bang singularity or event horizon conditions? Or
some type of subatomic particle that has peculiar properties. Those are all
not very helpful for what we are doing, but I still think there maybe
something else... there has to be something else applicable or maybe totally
inapplicable to AGI. So it may be a waste of time thinking on that one...

John



-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to