On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to get into a quibble fest, but understanding is not
> necessarily constrained to prediction.
Indeed, "understanding" is a fuzzy word that means lots of different
things in different contexts. In the context of Ne
Matt,
On 5/8/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 5/7/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > See http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/newcombs-proble.html
>
> > After many postings on this subject, I still ass
--- Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to get into a quibble fest, but understanding is not
> necessarily constrained to prediction.
What would be a good test for understanding an algorithm?
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
agi
A
"Entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily". William of Okkam.
A pattern is a set of matching inputs.
A match is a partial identity of the comparands.
The comparands for general intelligence must incrementally & indefinitely
scale in complexity.
The scaling must start from the bottom: uncomp
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyhow it is very interesting. Perhaps savantism is an attention mechanism
> disorder? Like, too much attention.
Yes.
"Autism is a devastating neurodevelopmental disorder with a
polygenetic predisposition that seems
Hi Jim,
Funny, I was just thinking re the reply to your point, the second before I
read it. What I was going to say was: I read a lot of Harnad many years ago,
and I was a bit confused then about exactly what he was positing re the
intermediate levels of processing - iconic/categorical.
- Original Message
From: Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 8:29:02 PM
Subject: Re: Newcomb's Paradox (was Re: [agi] Goal Driven Systems and AI
Dangers)
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> (I don't really expect
- Original Message
From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 8:16:32 PM
Subject: Re: Symbol Grounding [WAS Re: [agi] AGI-08 videos]
No, a symbol is simply anything abstract that stands for an object - word
sounds, alphabetic words, num
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > A rational agent only has to know that there are some things it cannot
> > compute. In particular, it cannot understand its own algorithm.
> >
>
> Matt,
>
> (I don't
No, a symbol is simply anything abstract that stands for an object - word
sounds, alphabetic words, numbers, logical variables etc. The earliest
proto-symbols may well have been emotions.
My point is that Harnad clearly talks of two intermediate visual/sensory
levels of processing - the iconi
Hi Mike,
I've spent some time working with the CMU Sphinx automatic speech recognition
software, as well as the Festival text-to-speech software. From the Texai
SourceForge source code repository, anyone interested can inspect and download
an echo application that recognizes a spoken utterance
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It oughtn't to be all neuro- though. There is a need for some kind of
> "corporate" science - that studies "whole body" simulation and not just the
> cerebral end,.After all, a lot of the simulations being talked about are v.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A rational agent only has to know that there are some things it cannot
> compute. In particular, it cannot understand its own algorithm.
>
Matt,
(I don't really expect you to give an answer to this question, as you
didn'
A nice analogy occurs to me for NLP - processing language without the
sounds.
It's like processing songs without the music.
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify
Actually, the sound of language isn't just a subtle thing - it's
foundational. Language is sounds first, and letters second (or third/fourth
historically).
And the sounds aren't just sounds - they express emotions about what is
being said. Not just emphases per one earlier post.
You could in
--- Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > See http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/newcombs-proble.html
> After many postings on this subject, I still assert that
> ANY rational AGI would be religious.
Not necessarily. You ex
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a vague memory of coming across this research to duplicate savant
> behavior, and I seem to remember thinking that the conclusion seems to be
> that there is a part of the brain that is responsible for 'damping do
On 5/7/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YKY : Logic can deal with almost everything, depending on how much effort
> you put in it =)
>
> "LES sanglots longs. des violons. de l'automne.
> Blessent mon cour d'une langueur monotone."
>
> You don't just read those words, (and most words),
Here are a few,
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/morton/socialneuroscience
http://www.psypress.com/socialneuroscience/introduction.asp
> Radhika Tibrewal wrote:
>> Something similar with respect to Social Neuroscience would also be
>> interesting, since it being an emerging field is boun
Mike Tintner wrote:
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/psychology/taharley/pcgn_harley_review.pdf
Richard's cowriter above reviews the state of cognitive neuropsychology,
[and the Handbook of Cognitive Neuropsychology] painting a picture of v.
considerable disagreement in the discipline. I'd be intereste
Radhika Tibrewal wrote:
Something similar with respect to Social Neuroscience would also be
interesting, since it being an emerging field is bound to be heavily
criticized. It is definitely still in a very nascent stage but growing
rapidly.
I am actually not familiar with Scoial Neuroscience:
Something similar with respect to Social Neuroscience would also be
interesting, since it being an emerging field is bound to be heavily
criticized. It is definitely still in a very nascent stage but growing
rapidly.
> http://www.dundee.ac.uk/psychology/taharley/pcgn_harley_review.pdf
>
> Richard
Stefan,
I would prefer that you not remain quiet. I would prefer that you pick
*specific* points and argue them -- that's the way that science is done. The
problem is that AGI is an extremely complex subject and mailing lists are a
horrible forum for discussing such unless all participant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
I am writing a literature review on AGI and I am mentioning the
definition of pattern as explained by Ben in his work.
"A pattern is a representation of an object on a simpler scale. For
example, a pattern in a drawing of a mathematical curve could be a
progra
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Richard, there is no substance behind your speculations - zero. Zip.
> And all the fantasy and imagination you so clearly demonstrated here on the
> board wont make up for that. You make stuff up as you go along and as yo
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/psychology/taharley/pcgn_harley_review.pdf
Richard's cowriter above reviews the state of cognitive neuropsychology,
[and the Handbook of Cognitive Neuropsychology] painting a picture of v.
considerable disagreement in the discipline. I'd be interested if anyone can
reco
You may want to check out the background material on this issue. Harnad
invented the idea that there is a 'symbol grounding problem', so that is
why I quoted him. His usage of the word 'symbol' is the one that is
widespread in cognitive science, but it appears that you are missing
this, and
>> Richard, there is no substance behind your speculations - zero. Zip. And all
>> the fantasy and imagination you so clearly demonstrated here on the board
>> wont make up for that. You make stuff up as you go along and as you need it
>> and you clearly have enough time at your hand to do so.
Stefan Pernar wrote:
Richard, there is no substance behind your speculations - zero. Zip. And
all the fantasy and imagination you so clearly demonstrated here on the
board wont make up for that. You make stuff up as you go along and as
you need it and you clearly have enough time at your hand
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I happened to catch a program on National Geographic Channel today
entitled "Accidental Genius." It was quite interesting from an AGI
standpoint.
One of the researchers profiled has invented a device that, by sending
electromagnetic pulses through a person's skull to the
Steve,
I suspect I'll regret asking, but...
Does this rational belief make a difference to intelligence? (For the
moment confining the idea of intelligence to making good choices.)
If the AGI rationalized the existence of a higher power, what ultimate
bad choice do you see as a result? (I'v
31 matches
Mail list logo