> > Well, yeah. I am flawed and weak and small and mortal, and I want to be
> > super and supremely smart and immortal.
>
> This may be where we differ the most, but that's OK. I also feel
> small and
> flawed and mortal and neurotic etc.
> I also seek for escape from this condition. So we have
>
> Let me try to cast the "hard problem" of consciousness into your
Buddhistic
> language.
>
> The "hard problem" is how
>
> -- possession of "the causes and conditions for thought to arise"
>
> leads to
>
> -- "consciousness" of interpenetratedness
This is difficult and I'm not sure I fully unde
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] How wrong are these numbers?
>
> Kevin wrote:
> > I think Ben is closer to
> > anyone in having a true mapping of the
> > brain and its capab
Boy, I opened a can of worms.. here goes...
>
> Kevin wrote:
> > I will go as far to say that any computer system we develop, even one
> > that realizes all the promises of the singularity, can only match the
> > capacity of the human Mind. Why? Because the universe is the Mind
> > itself, an
> In relation to the subtle consciousness, or store consciousness, I believe
> it interpenetrates all things equally. So to speak of "more" or "less"
> conscious, from this vantage point, is incorrect. A wooden doll is
> interpenetrated as well, but is not "conscious" of it because it lacks the
Kevin wrote:
> I think Ben is closer to
> anyone in having a true mapping of the
> brain and its capabilities. As to whether it ultimately develops the
> emergent qualities we speak of..time will tell...even
> if it falls short of singularity type hype, i believe it can provide
> tremendous ben
Kevin wrote:
> I will go as far to say that any computer system we develop, even one
> that realizes all the promises of the singularity, can only match the
> capacity of the human Mind. Why? Because the universe is the Mind
> itself, and the computational capacity of the universe is rather
> i
> > For instance, in relation to memory capacity. let's say I could live
> > for the age of the universe, roughly 15 billion years. I believe the
> > human mind(without enhancement of any kind) is capable of remembering
> > every detail of every day for that entire lifespan.
>
> That is contra
Ben,
As always, thanks for the well thought out reply...I am glad you could make
some sense of my ramblings...
Just a couple thoughts..
In relation to the subtle consciousness, or store consciousness, I believe
it interpenetrates all things equally. So to speak of "more" or "less"
conscious, fr
> For instance, in relation to memory capacity. let's say I could live
> for the age of the universe, roughly 15 billion years. I believe the
> human mind(without enhancement of any kind) is capable of remembering
> every detail of every day for that entire lifespan.
That is contrary to actua
Kevin,
You raise a critical point, and my thinking on this point is a bit
unorthodox, as well as incomplete...
There is a big unanswered question close to the heart of my theory of mind,
and this is the connection between Firstness and Fourthness. I sum up this
question with the Orwell paraph
Ben,
I think I followed most of your analysis :)
I agree with most of what you stated so well. The only difficulty for me is
that the patterns, whether emergent in the individual or the group, still
pertain to the gross level of mind and not the subtle levels of
consciousness. It is quite OK, I
Kevin,
About "mind=brain" ...
My own view of that elusive entity, “mind" is well-articulated in terms of
the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce, who considered there to be several
different levels on which mind could be separately considered. Peirce used
three levels, but inspired by Jung and oth
I've got a sawbuck in my pocket that says that you are seriously
underestimating the capacity of the human mind.
In fact, its questionable whether you can emulate a mouse brain adequately
with that amount of power. I also think you guys are seriously
underestimating the memory capacity of the hum
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 14:25, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
> To emulate the massively parallel "information update rate" of the brain on
> N bits of memory, how many commodity PC processors are required per GB of
> RAM?
It would take a lot of processors. Not particularly fast ones, but a
lot of them.
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> The next question is: What's your corresponding estimate of processing
> power?
Thanks for the prompt.
Lets use the number 2^30 for the size of the memory which will require
25 operations for each 32 bit word.
2^30 bytes == 2^28 words.
We are going to cycle the thing at
Alan
The next question is: What's your corresponding estimate of processing
power?
To emulate the massively parallel "information update rate" of the brain on
N bits of memory, how many commodity PC processors are required per GB of
RAM?
Ben G
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > A short, interesting ar
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> A short, interesting article on the information capacity of the brain
> was written by nanotechnologist Ralph Merkle; see
> http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html
> He gives figures between 10^9 bits and 10^15 bits.
[ The upper bound, which in my oppinion is unrealistic, t
A short, interesting article on the information capacity of the brain was
written by nanotechnologist Ralph Merkle; see
http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html
He gives figures between 10^9 bits and 10^15 bits.
-- Ben G
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
The functional unit of the cerebral cortex is the cortical column.
A cortical column is roughly .5-.6 mm in diameter. (lets say that 4 can
fit in a square mm).
The cerebral cortex is around the size of four sheets of regular paper.
Lets say the paper is 216x280 = 60,480 square milimeters.
The c
20 matches
Mail list logo
