On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 15:26, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI
mailto:agi@agi.topicbox.com>> wrote:
Jim
Bootstrapping a computational platform with domain knowledge
(seeding with insights), was already done a few years ago by the
ex head of AI research in France. I need
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/science/plants-consciousness-anesthesia.html?module=Promotron=Body=click=article
Jim Bromer
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:01 PM Jim Bromer wrote:
>
> Conscious experience - the soul or whatever it is - is not relevant to
> contemporary computer science. I do not
Conscious experience - the soul or whatever it is - is not relevant to
contemporary computer science. I do not agree with the dismissal of
that feeling of experience either. As I told Marvin Minsky I do agree
that whatever conscious experience is it probably has the potential to
be explained by
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 12:12 PM John Rose wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Mahoney via AGI
> >
> > We could say that everything is conscious. That has the same meaning as
> > nothing is conscious. But all we are doing is avoiding defining
> something that is
> > really hard
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:15 PM wrote:
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Jim Bromer wrote:
>
> I don't even think that stuff is relevant.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> It's relevant if consciousness is the secret sauce. and if it applies to
> the complexity problem.
>
Jim is right. I don't believe
If Demis Hassabis, the current leader of Google's DeepMind AI subsidiary,
was able several years ago to create an artificially intelligent program
that could learn to play each of many different video games much better
than human players -- just from feedback from from playing each such game
--
Most interesting. Thanks for sharing. From the little I understand about this
large, body of work, this makes sense to me. However, I would contend that by
adopting - what is called by some - a network structure (closing loops in a
3-entity structure) would lead to confusing results.
For
On Thursday, September 13, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> I don't even think that stuff is relevant.
Jim,
It's relevant if consciousness is the secret sauce. and if it applies to the
complexity problem.
Would a non-conscious entity have a reason to develop AGI?
John
I don't think I've seen a discussion on this mailing list yet about Pearl's
hypothesis that causal inference is the key to AGI. His breakthroughs on
causation have been in use for almost 2 decades. The new Book of Why,
other than being the most accessible presentation of these ideas to a
broader
The problem has always been complexity. If that hadn't been a problem the
paths to achieve AI - even a general AI - would be so numerous that it
would just be a normal programming project. It might take 10 or 20 years to
fully develop the first good models. As far as Artificial Soul or
Artificial
Yes it is. This is, what I believe is a basis to human learning. Of
course we get a lot of outside help, but the value of education (or
instruction) is based on the ability of the human being to be able to
integrate what is being taught (or pointed out). While that seems to
be a little beyond
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI
>
> We could say that everything is conscious. That has the same meaning as
> nothing is conscious. But all we are doing is avoiding defining something
> that is
> really hard to define. Likewise with free will.
I disagree. Some things
Is this relating to anything concrete? I'm having a hard time processing
abstract essays like that...
Cheers
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 17:42, Jim Bromer via AGI
wrote:
> The first stage of learning something new is mostly trial and error.
> Of course you have to understand some prerequisites
The first stage of learning something new is mostly trial and error.
Of course you have to understand some prerequisites before you are
capable of learning something new. Simplification is useful at this
stage even though it might get in the way. Idealization is a method
which you can use to
We could say that everything is conscious. That has the same meaning as
nothing is conscious. But all we are doing is avoiding defining something
that is really hard to define. Likewise with free will.
We will know we have properly modeled human minds in AGI if it claims to be
conscious and have
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 04:02, Logan Streondj via AGI
wrote:
> personally I'm a monist, dualism has too many problems.
>
What's a monist?
>
> Everything is consciousness,
> all the things we experience (i.e. photons and fermions),
> are just conscious entities communicating to each other.
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
