Wow! The civility level on this list is really bottoming out . . . . along
with any sort of scientific grounding.
I have to agree with both Valentina and Richard . . . . since they are
supported by scientific results while others are merely speculating without
basis.
Experimental (imaging)
Can you define that difference in an abstract, general way? I
mean, what is the *qualitative* difference that makes:
cybersex is a kind of sex
different from:
penguin is a kind of bird?
I believe that cybersex and phone sex are called sex in a metaphoric way.
The keyboard or
We only know that:
P(sex | cybersex) = high
P(STD | sex) = high
If we're also given that
P(STD | cybersex) = 0
I think you just need a few more bits of knowledge:
P(sex | cybersex) = high
P(STD | sex) = high
P(STD | !contact) = 0
P(contact | cybersex) = 0
The 0-values (0 strength,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow! The civility level on this list is really bottoming out . . . . along
with any sort of scientific grounding.
Experimental (imaging) evidence shows that known words will strongly
activate some set of neurons when heard.
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
All,
Here's a question for you:
What does fomlepung mean?
If your immediate (mental) response was I don't know. it means
you're not a slang-slinging Norwegian. But, how did your brain
produce that feeling of not
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Valentina,
Well, the LOL is on you.
Richard failed to add anything new to the two previous responses that
each posited linguistic surface feature analysis as being responsible
for generate the feeling of not knowing with that *particular* (and,
admittedly poorly-chosen)
Jim Bromer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow! The civility level on this list is really bottoming out . . . . along
with any sort of scientific grounding.
Experimental (imaging) evidence shows that known words will strongly
activate some set of
Abram,
The syntactic surface feature argument makes a good, but rather narrow, addition
to the list of mechanisms that can engender a feeling of not knowing. The
interesting part is that, as someone who speaks Norwegian, using that word in
the example didn't set off phonological feature
We've been discussing how humans recognize that they don't recognize
objects/info. - don't know something.
How about how humans categorise in the first place ? How do we decide - to
use another recent thread [see below] - whether *cybersex* classifies as
*sex* or not, or whether *foreplay*
Sure,
search is at the root of all processing, be it human or AI.
How we each go about the search, and how efficient we are at the task are
different, and what exactly we are searching for, and exponential explosion.
But some type of search is done, whether we are consciously aware of our
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
All,
Here's a question for you:
What does fomlepung mean?
If your immediate (mental) response was I don't know. it means
you're not a slang-slinging Norwegian. But, how did your brain
- Original Message -
From: Harvey Newstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Fw: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
There is nothing at all spam-like about publicizing a
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
All,
Here's a question for you:
What does fomlepung mean?
If your immediate (mental) response was I don't know. it means
you're not a slang-slinging Norwegian. But, how
One major difference here seems to be categorization of objects versus
categorization of actions / events.
It is very easy to differentiate animals and things by a small set of features,
but
with actions this is a more complicated case.
sex can refer to the group of things, sexual relations,
Richard,
Someone who can throw comments like Isn't this a bit of a no-brainer? and
Keeping lists of 'things not known' is wildly, outrageously impossible, for any
system! at people should expect a little bit of annoyance in return. If you
can't take it, don't dish it out.
Your responses to
Categorization depends upon context. This was pretty much decided by the late
1980s (look up Fuzzy Concepts).
- Original Message -
From: James Ratcliff
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] a fuzzy reasoning problem
One
People can discriminate real words from nonwords even when the latter are
orthographically and phonologically word-like, presumably because words
activate specific lexical and/or semantic information.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheNcpsidt=14733408
Categories like noun and verb represent
Brad,
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to your cheerleader, she's just made my kill-list.
The only thing worse than
someone who slings unsupported opinions around like
they're facts, is someone
who slings someone else's unsupported opinions around
like
Brad,
Go back and look at Richard's e-mail again. His statement that Keeping
lists of 'things not known' is wildly, outrageously impossible, for any
system *WAS* supported by a brief but very clear evidence-based *and*
well-reasoned argument that should have made it's truth *very*
John LaMuth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Harvey Newstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Fw: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
John LaMuth
Brad,
I just wrote a long, point-by-point response to this, but on reflection
I am not going to send it.
Instead, I would like to echo Terren Suydam's comment and say that I
think that you have overreacted here, because in my original reply to
you I had not the slightest intention of
Brad,
Ah,, perhaps there has been a failure of communication - it sounded
(rightly or wrongly) from your original post, like your things I don't
know list was being used DURING the process of perception/ categorization,
and so was key to producing the I don't know this feeling. That was
Yes ok, this is needed, but was a bit different than what was being discussed
earlier, thank you for the clarification.
___
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brad
Richard,
I just finished reading and replying to your post preceding this one (I guess).
Your tone and approach in that post was more like what I expected from you.
I'm not going to get in a pissing match about what I should or should not take
personally. That will generate only heat not
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
James,
Someone ventured the *opinion* that keeping such a list of things I
don't know was nonsensical, but I have yet to see any evidence or
well-reasoned argument backing that opinion. So, it's just an
opinion. One with which I, obviously,
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
All,
Here's a question for you:
What does fomlepung mean?
If your immediate (mental) response was I don't know. it means
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
James,
Someone ventured the *opinion* that keeping such a list of things I
don't know was nonsensical, but I have yet to see any evidence or
well-reasoned argument backing that opinion. So, it's just an
opinion. One with
Hi all,
I just sent the following email to the OpenCog email list (
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
To avoid replicated discussion, I'd like to do any serious, detail
scientific/technical discussion of OpenCog Prime on the OpenCog email list.
So if you want to talk about OpenCogPrime in detail, please sign
28 matches
Mail list logo
