http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/science/05brain.html?_r=3partner=rssnytemc=rssoref=sloginoref=sloginoref=slogin
or, indirectly,
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/05/0138237from=rss
---
agi
Archives:
As the article says, this has long been suspected but until now hadn't
been demonstrated. Edelman was describing the same phenomena as the
remembered present well over a decade ago, and his idea seems to have
been loosely inspired by ideas from Freud and James.
Remembering seems to be an act of
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/science/05brain.html?_r=3partner=rssnytemc=rssoref=sloginoref=sloginoref=slogin
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/1164685 for the original study.
Er sorry - my question is answered in the interesting Slashdot thread
(thanks again):
Past studies have shown how many neurons are involved in a single, simple
memory. Researchers might be able to isolate a few single neurons in the
process of summoning a memory, but that is like saying that
OK, I'll bite: what's nondeterministic programming if not a contradiction?
Again - v. briefly - it's a reality - nondeterministic programming is a
reality, so there's no material, mechanistic, software problem in getting a
machine to decide either way. The only problem is a logical one of
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
I sympathize with your care in wording, because I'm very aware of the
strange meaning that the word model takes on in formal accounts of
semantics. While a cognitive scientist might talk about a person's
model of the
2008/9/5 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Past studies have shown how many neurons are involved in a single, simple
memory. Researchers might be able to isolate a few single neurons in the
process of summoning a memory, but that is like saying that they have
isolated a few water molecules in
2008/9/5 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are
guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even if it could be made so, computer systems would not
MT:By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers are
guaranteed to complete any task they begin.
Will:If only such could be guaranteed! We would never have system hangs,
dead locks. Even if it could be made so, computer systems would not
always want to do so.
Will,
That's
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you still see NARS as using model-theoretic
semantics, so you
call it symbolic and contrast it with system
with sensors. This is
not correct --- see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.semantics.pdf and
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you still see NARS as using model-theoretic
semantics, so you
call it symbolic and contrast it with system
with sensors. This is
not correct --- see
Matt,
FINALLY, someone here is saying some of the same things that I have been
saying. With general agreement with your posting, I will make some
comments...
On 9/4/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ppl like Ben argue that
Mike,
Will's objection is not quite so easily dismissed. You need to argue
that there is an alternative, not just that Will's is more of the
same.
--Abram
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MT:By contrast, all deterministic/programmed machines and computers
Mike,
The philosophical paradigm I'm assuming is that the only two
alternatives are deterministic and random. Either the next state is
completely determined by the last, or it is only probabilistically
determined.
Deterministic does not mean computable, since physical processes can
be totally
Vladamir,
On 9/4/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Valentina Poletti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Also, Steve made another good point here: loads of people at any moment
do
whatever they can to block the advancement and progress of human beings
as
Abram,
I don't understand why.how I need to argue an alternative - please explain.
If it helps, a deterministic, programmed machine can, at any given point,
only follow one route through a given territory or problem space or maze -
even if surprising *appearing* to halt/deviate from the
Hi Mike, comments below...
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again - v. briefly - it's a reality - nondeterministic
programming is a
reality, so there's no material, mechanistic, software
problem in getting a
machine to decide either way.
This is inherently
Mike,
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abram,
I don't understand why.how I need to argue an alternative - please explain.
I am not sure what to say, but here is my view of the situation. You
are claiming that there is a broad range of things that
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NARS indeed can learn semantics before syntax --- see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf
Yes, I see this corrects many of the problems with Cyc and with traditional
language models. I didn't see a description of a mechanism
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NARS indeed can learn semantics before syntax --- see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf
Yes, I see this corrects many of the problems with Cyc and with
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like to many existing AI works, my disagreement with you is
not that
much on the solution you proposed (I can see the value),
but on the
problem you specified as the goal of AI. For example, I
have no doubt
about the theoretical and
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that a billion or so, divided up into small pieces to fund EVERY
disparate approach to see where the low hanging fruit is, would go a
LONG way in guiding subsequent billions. I doubt that it would take a
trillion to succeed.
Matt,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your ideas in detail. As I said,
our different opinions on how to do AI come from our very different
understanding of intelligence. I don't take passing Turing Test as
my research goal (as explained in
23 matches
Mail list logo
