Mark Waser wrote:
Only from your side. Science looks at facts. I have the irrefutable
fact of intelligent blind people. You have nothing -- so you decide
that it is an opinion thing. Tell me how my position is not cold,
hard science. You are the one whose position is wholly faith with no
Fair enough.
The reason why I am hammering this so hard is because I believe that vision
is a seriously long detour on the path to AGI. Vision is a tough problem
and getting sucked into it as a pre-requisite for AGI is, I believe, likely
to seriously delay it (it being AGI, not vision :-).
Bayesian nets, Copycat, Shruiti, Fair Isaac, and CYC, are a failure,
probably because of their lack of grounding. According to Occam's Razor,
the simplest method of grounding visual images is not words, but vision.
As Albert Einstein quoted Make everything as simple as possible, but
not
Hi.
This argument, taken to its limit, is known as ZFC, the
zermelo-frenkel-axiom-of-choice axioms. Some mathematicians, the
constructivists, try to ground everything in ZFC.
Sorry, but at these points you are just wrong. Using ZFC, or for
that matter ZF+something as an axiomatic basis for
I im trying to send the message by just typing my comments in your post
referred to below. I have been told that will end up shoing your text
with a in front of each line. Just in case it doesn't if you view
this in rich text you will see my comments underlined.
-Original Message-
It is a waste of time arguing. We don't know the basic definitions of
intelligence, auditory grounding, etc.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
RE: [agi] The Grounding of MathsEdward,
As a v. quick reply to start with, grounding means making sense of - using
ALL senses not just visual.
Did you think about it?
Yes I did. A lot
Your ability to reply here is based on your sensory experience of having
thought - that is not a
Hi,
The current discussion on symbol grounding, to me, includes several
different (though related) questions. In the following, I'll try to
separate them, and give my opinion on each of them.
*. When is a symbol grounded?
A symbol is grounded when its meaning to the system is determined
This is a very nice list of questions and makes a good framework for talking
about the issues. Here are my opinions...
On Saturday 13 October 2007 11:29:16 am, Pei Wang wrote:
*. When is a symbol grounded?
Grounded is not a good way of approaching what we're trying to get at, which
is
From: Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What do you suggest is a rational approach for AGI research to follow?
That's a very broad question. If I narrow it to something relevant to
the recent conversation, I get:
What do you suggest is a rational approach to preventing AI's
from
My personal opinion is that the internal use of words is largely for
indexing. That words are a device closely connected with
serialization. This doesn't mean that they are an efficient way to
think, and I doubt that they are, except in special circumstances. Of
course, if what you're doing
Grounding requires sensoria of some sort. Not necessarily vision.
Spatial grounding requires sensoria that connect spatially coherent signals.
Vision is one form of spatial grounding, but I believe that goinometric
sensation is even more important...though it definitely needs additional
Are you trying to make an intelligent program or want to launch a
singularity? I think you are trying to do the former, not the latter.
I think you do not have a plan and are thinking out loud. Chatting in
this list is equivalent to thinking out loud. Think it all out first,
before chatting. I
13 matches
Mail list logo
