Mark Waser Wrote:
I'm just finishing off a paper for the AAAI Fall BICA Symposium where I
effectively argue that religious belief is a rational drive common to all
goal-seeking entities. I don't (by any means) hit people in the face with
that exact statement but it's plainly evident from what I
Charles D Hixson said:
But religious beliefs *ARE* intrinsically different from rational
beliefs. They aren't the only such belief, but they are among them.
Rational beliefs MUST be founded in other beliefs. Rationalism does not
provide a basis for generating beliefs ab initio, but only via
It looks as if you're saying that scientific rationalism must be grounded
but that rationalism in general need not be. Is this a correct
interpretation?
- Original Message -
From: Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:39 AM
Subject:
Mark Real-time speech-to-text is not the problem (though the accuracy rate is
still below what is to be preferred -- a problem which your solution does *NOT*
address).
Steve Apparently you haven't been reading my postings carefully enough. On
several occations I referred to the general
On Monday 14 April 2008 04:56:18 am, Steve Richfield wrote:
... My present
efforts are now directed toward a new computer architecture that may be more
of interest to AGI types here than Dr. Eliza. This new architecture should
be able to build new PC internals for about the same cost, using
Josh,
On 4/15/08, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 April 2008 04:56:18 am, Steve Richfield wrote:
... My present
efforts are now directed toward a new computer architecture that may be
more
of interest to AGI types here than Dr. Eliza. This new architecture
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 04:28:25 pm, Steve Richfield wrote:
Josh,
On 4/15/08, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 April 2008 04:56:18 am, Steve Richfield wrote:
... My present
efforts are now directed toward a new computer architecture that may be
more
of
I kind of disagree with this attitude, too conformist and over assuming.
I've seen too many flaked out freakazoids have tiny grains of absolute
brilliance sprinkled throughout their time wasting mass of obtruse
utterings.
Yeah you can't waste too much time and have to gain something with the
Josh,
On 4/15/08, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either you're using static RAM (and getting a big hit in density and
power) or
DRAM, and getting a big hit in speed.
I have taken some chip design courses but have never actually designed any
chips, so please correct any
John,
You are absolutely right. People should simply delete the parts of postings
that they think have no value, leaving just the tiny grain(s) of absolute
brilliance, and add whatever they can to them for everyone's benefit. One
man's obtuse utterings are sometimes another man's grains of
Sure. And sometimes we all need that reassuring constructive criticism when
we have that great idea and blurt it out a little too soon before doing some
background reading like -
Hey guys! I have this great idea for creating AGI where you stare into the
sun and blink code in the Whirl
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 07:36:56 pm, Steve Richfield wrote:
As I understand things, speed requires low capacitance, which DRAM requires
higher capacitance, depending on how often you intend to refresh. However,
refresh operations look a LOT like vector operations, so probably all that
would
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
...
The third mistake is to forget that nobody knows how to program SIMD. They
can't even get programmers to adopt functional programming, for god's sake;
the only thing the average programmer can think in is BASIC, or C which is
essentially machine-independent
13 matches
Mail list logo
