Mike, I can totally understand Ben's frustration and boredom with your posts. You're somehow an expert on general intelligence, yet you refuse to eradicate your own ignorance about some of the most basic technical concepts. What are you doing on a mailing list about artificial general intelligence if you can't relate to the technical concepts that are necessary to discuss its feasibility and/or implementation?
Your enthusiasm is great, but until you gain some competency in technical areas, you aren't much more than a troll, on this list. You really are the embodiment of Eliezer Yudkowsky's point about people who can't see beyond their own level of intelligence. Your repeated accusations of ignorance against Ben bear that out. Maybe his approach will work and maybe it won't, but it ought to be obvious that this is a guy who does his homework. He has not only thought about creativity (one of the axes you endlessly grind), he has written a book about it, which in all likelihood you have not and will not read. So maybe you should stop posting until you can demonstrate a grasp of technical concepts. I think that would be a reasonable requirement to make of those who would post here, to demonstrate some competency in basic computer science concepts. That kind of rule is in force in other technical groups I participate in. Terren --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: [redwood] ICBS Seminar: -PS To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 10:47 AM Ben, According to the known laws of physics, analog computers cannot compute anything different than what digital computers can... if by "compute" you mean "produce results observable by finite-precision instruments like human eyes and ears" Ben, There is one other question here. Don't digital computers always add another layer? A line, say, always has to be translated into something else, like geometric formulae, in order for a digital computer to handle it, no? All information has to be coded and decoded, no? I, as you/ve probably gathered, want a machine that can handle the line as a line, directly. A map as a map.No code. There is nothing comparable to the brain's maps in the physical layout of current computers, is there? Could there be? (Neural networks aren't quite the same, are they)? agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
