On 29/02/2008, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
consciousness is a continuously moving picture with the other senses
continuous too
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for this. People with damage
to MT, or certain types of visual migrane, see the world as a slow
jerky series of
d) you keep repeating the illusion that evolution did NOT achieve the
airplane and other machines - oh yes, it did - your central illusion here
is
that machines are independent species. They're not. They are
EXTENSIONS of
human beings, and don't work without human beings attached.
Mike,
Don't you know about change blindness and the like? You don't actually
see all these details, it's delusional. You only get the gist of the
scene, according to current context that forms the focus of your
attention. Amount of information you extract from watching a movie is
not dramatically
Robert:
I think it would be more accurate to say that technological meme evolution was
caused by the biological evolution, rather than being the extension of it,
since they are in fact two quite different evolutionary systems, with different
kinds of populations/survival conditions.
I would
Vlad: Don't you know about change blindness and the like? You don't
actually
see all these details, it's delusional. You only get the gist of the
scene, according to current context that forms the focus of your
attention. Amount of information you extract from watching a movie is
not
Hi
There was a thread on cluster and distributed computing earlier. It was in the
context of some of you possibly needing huge computer resource (bandwidth,
storage space and/or raw processing power) for a short amount of time and .
Check out Amazon's S3 and EC2 web services. To test out your
Mike Tintner wrote:
Sorry, yes the run is ambiguous.
I mean that what the human mind does is *watch* continuous movies - but
it then runs/creates its own extensive movies based on its experience in
dreams - and, with some effort, replay movies in conscious imagination.
The point is: my
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 29/02/2008, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
consciousness is a continuously moving picture with the other senses
continuous too
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for this. People with damage
to MT, or certain types of visual migrane, see the world as a slow
Mike Tintner wrote:
Eh? Move your hand across the desk. You see that as a series of
snapshots? Move a noisy object across. You don't see a continuous
picture with a continuous soundtrack?
Let me give you an example of how impressive I think the brain's powers
here are. I've been thinking
Mike Tintner wrote:
[snip]
How do you think a person can fall in love with another person in just a
few minutes of talking to them (or not even talking at all)? How does
their brain get them to do that - without the person having any
conscious understanding of why they're falling? By
On 29/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you are doing is saying that to understand visual (or other)
images, or more generally to understand sequences like sequences of
words in a sentence, the mind MUST replay these on some internal viewing
screen.
Instead of a
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 29/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you are doing is saying that to understand visual (or other)
images, or more generally to understand sequences like sequences of
words in a sentence, the mind MUST replay these on some internal viewing
screen.
Trivial answer, Richard - though my fault for not explaining myself.
Our attractions to others - why we choose them as friends or lovers - are
actually v. complex. They have to pass a whole set of tests, fit a whole set
of criteria to attract us significantly. It's loosely as complex
Our attractions to others - why we choose them as friends or lovers - are
actually v. complex.
The example of Love at first sight proves that your statement is not
universally true.
You seem to have an awful lot of unfounded beliefs that you persist in
believing as facts.
- Original
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me
that many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal
learning technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering
what justification there is for the restriction to turing-machine models of
I am not so sure that humans use uncomputable models in any useful sense,
when doing calculus. Rather, it seems that in practice we use
computable subsets
of an in-principle-uncomputable theory...
Oddly enough, one can make statements *about* uncomputability and
uncomputable entities, using only
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me
that many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal
learning technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, one can prove that even if x is an uncomputable real number
x - x = 0
But that doesn't mean one has to be able to hold *any* uncomputable number x
in one's brain...
This is a general theorem about
This is a general theorem about *strings* in this formal system, but
no such string with uncomputable real number can ever be written, so
saying that it's a theorem about uncomputable real numbers is an empty
set theory (it's a true statement, but it's true in a trivial
falsehood,
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a general theorem about *strings* in this formal system, but
no such string with uncomputable real number can ever be written, so
saying that it's a theorem about uncomputable real numbers is an empty
set
--- Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vlad: Don't you know about change blindness and the like? You don't
actually
see all these details, it's delusional. You only get the gist of the
scene, according to current context that forms the focus of your
attention. Amount of information
--- Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me
that many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal
learning technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering
what justification there is
Ben Goertzel wrote:
yet I still feel you dismiss the text-mining approach too glibly...
No, but text mining requires a language model that learns while mining. You
can't mine the text first.
Agreed ... and this gets into subtle points. Which aspects of the
language model
need to be
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Mike Tintner wrote:
Eh? Move your hand across the desk. You see that as a series of
snapshots? Move a noisy object across. You don't see a continuous
picture with a continuous soundtrack?
Let me give you an example of how impressive I think the brain's
powers here
Thanks for the replies,
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not so sure that humans use uncomputable models in any useful sense,
when doing calculus. Rather, it seems that in practice we use
computable subsets
of an in-principle-uncomputable theory...
25 matches
Mail list logo
