You have an imaginative synthesis of a number of different ideas. I
can read your comments as a kind of poetry, but I cannot take them as
literal realities. Quantum entanglement, for example, is an effort to
explain a phenomena that seems contrary to what would be expected
given the success of
I just recently wrote some thoughts on twitter about this. My thoughts
there are a rough sketch at bridging the gap of doubt between personal
experience on one hand and the compelling case for cybernetic totalism on
the other. I'm thinking of expanding this is into a full article to better
make
I'm beginning to think that consciousness is the pathway to intelligence. Bear
with me. At first, it sounds "illogical". However, we could entertain the
notion that experience-based learning is practically impossible without a
consciousness, then it becomes logical.
If we need both
Matt's response - like an adolescent's flip remark - is evidence of
the kind of denial that I mentioned.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:49 AM Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote:
>
> I wrote a simple reinforcement learner which includes the line of code:
>
> printf("Ouch!\n");
>
> So I don't see
I wrote a simple reinforcement learner which includes the line of code:
printf("Ouch!\n");
So I don't see communication of qualia as a major obstacle to AGI.
Or do you mean something else by qualia?
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 5:21 AM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt
John,
There are aspects of the intelligent understanding of the world
(universe of things and ideas) that can be modelled and simulated. I
think this is computable in an AI program except the problem of
complexity would slow the modelling down so much that it would not be
effective enough (at this
Well I see a problem. I cannot find a test to demonstrate that the
mysterious part of conscious experience that most of us sense because, from
my point of view, the science to detect it has not been developed and Matt
would not be able to find a scientific test to prove that it does not exist
