On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
It has to do
Then state the base principles or the algorithm that generates them,
without
ambiguity and without appealing to common sense. Otherwise I have to
believe
they are complex too.
Existence proof to disprove your I have to believe . . . .
1. Magically collect all members of the species.
2.
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism in which
it's possible. What does it have to do with anything?
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just another formalism
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Richard,
It's a question of notation. Yes, you can sometimes formulate
difficult problems succinctly. GoL is just
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
predicts all the interesting creatures given only the rules?
The question
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory that
predicts all
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then state the base principles or the algorithm that generates them,
without
ambiguity and without appealing to common sense. Otherwise I have to
believe
they are complex too.
Existence proof to disprove your I have to believe . . . .
On 10/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I guess we are in perfect agreement. Friendliness is what the
average
person would do.
Which one of the words in And not my proposal wasn't clear? As far as I
am concerned, friendliness is emphatically not what the average person
Then I guess we are in perfect agreement. Friendliness is what the
average
person would do.
Which one of the words in And not my proposal wasn't clear? As far as I
am concerned, friendliness is emphatically not what the average person would
do.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hear you, but let me quickly summarize the reason why I introduced GoL
as an example.
Thank you. I appreciate the confirmation of understanding my point.
I have observed many cases where the back and forth
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:46:02 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Oh, and, by the way, the widely accepted standard for what counts as a
scientific theory is -- as any scientist will be able to tell you --
that it has to make its prediction without becoming larger
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us predict the
patterns from the rules (equivalent to predicting planetary dynamics
given the inverse square law
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about GoL was the question: Can there ever be a scientific theory
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason for talking
about
On Friday 05 October 2007 12:13:32 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Try walking into any physics department in the world and saying Is it
okay if most theories are so complicated that they dwarf the size and
complexity of the system that they purport to explain?
You're conflating a theory and
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us predict the
patterns from the rules (equivalent to predicting planetary dynamics
given
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us predict the
patterns
--- Mike Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I guess we are in perfect agreement. Friendliness is what the
average
person would do.
Which one of the words in And not my proposal wasn't clear? As far as I
am concerned,
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My stock example: planetary motion. Newton (actually Tycho Brahe,
Kepler, et al) observed some global behavior in this system: the orbits
are elliptical and motion follows Kepler's other laws. This corresponds
to someone seeing Game of
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 03:03:35PM -0400, Mark Waser wrote:
Do you really think you can show an example of a true moral universal?
Thou shalt not destroy the universe.
Thou shalt not kill every living and/or sentient being including yourself.
Thou shalt not kill every living and/or sentient
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 07:49:20AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
As to exactly how, I don't know, but since the AGI is, by assumption,
peaceful, friendly and non-violent, it will do it in a peaceful,
friendly and non-violent manner.
I like to think of myself as peaceful and non-violent,
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 07:49:20AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
As to exactly how, I don't know, but since the AGI is, by assumption,
peaceful, friendly and non-violent, it will do it in a peaceful,
friendly and non-violent manner.
I like to think of myself as
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:39:18PM -0400, Edward W. Porter wrote:
the
IQ bell curve is not going down. The evidence is its going up.
So that's why us old folks 'r gettin' stupider as compared to
them's young'uns.
--linas
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To
OK, this is very off-topic. Sorry.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:36:34PM -0400, a wrote:
Linas Vepstas wrote:
For the most part, modern western culture espouses and hews to
physical non-violence. However, modern right-leaning pure capitalism
advocates not only social Darwinism, but also the
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:06:11AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
In case anyone else wonders about the same question, I will explain why
the Turing machine equivalence has no relevance at all.
Re-read what you wrote, substituting the phrase Turing machine, for
each and every occurrance of
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:39:51PM -0400, J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Friday 05 October 2007 12:13:32 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Try walking into any physics department in the world and saying Is it
okay if most theories are so complicated that they dwarf the size and
complexity of
On Thursday 04 October 2007 05:19:29 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
I have no idea how new the idea is. When Schank was talking about
scripts ...
From the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (p729):
Schemata are the psychological constructs that are postulated to account for
the molar
On 10/5/07, Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be abstract, you could subsitute semi-Thue system, context-free
grammar, first-order logic, Lindenmeyer system, history monoid,
etc. for GoL, and still get an equivalent argument about complexity
and predicatability. Singling out GoL as
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind. Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for the demos.
-
This
It's also because the average person looses 10 points in IQ between mid
twenties and mid fourties and another ten points between mid fourties and
sixty. (Help! I'am 59.)
But this is just the average. Some people hang on to their marbles as
they age better than others. And knowledge gained
I am trying to understand categorical logic from reading Pei Wangs very
interesting paper, A Logic of Categorization. Since I am a total
newbie to the field I have some probably dumb questions. But at the risk
of making a fool of myself let me ask them to members of the list.
Lets use --
All interesting (and complex!) phenomena happen at the edges/fringe. Boundary
conditions seem to be a requisite for complexity. Life originated on a planet
(10E-10 of space), on its surface (10E-10 of its volume). 99.99+% of the
fractal curve area is boring, it's just the edges of a very small
33 matches
Mail list logo
