On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in any case there is a complete distinction between D and L. The brain
never sends entities of D to its output region but it sends entities of L.
Therefore there must be a strict separation between language model
It would also be nice if this mailing list could be operate on a bit more of
a scientific basis. I get really tired of pointing to specific references
and then being told that I have no facts or that it was solely my opinion.
This really has to do with the culture of the community on the
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. After the recent discussion it seems this list has turned into the
philosophical musings related to AGI list. Where is the AGI engineering
list?
The problem isn't philosophy, but bad philosophy (the prevalent
Vlad:Good philosophy is necessary for AI...We need to work more on the
foundations, to understand whether we are
going in the right direction
More or less perfectly said. While I can see that a majority of people here
don't want it, actually philosophy, (which should be scientifically based),
I do not understand what kind of understanding of noncomputable numbers you
think a human has, that AIXI could not have. Could you give a specific
example of this kind of understanding? What is some fact about
noncomputable numbers that a human can understand but AIXI cannot? And how
are you
There is a wide area between moderation and complete laissez-faire.
Also, as list owner, people tend to pay attention to what you say/request and
also what you do.
If you regularly point to references and ask others to do the same, they are
likely to follow. If you were to gently chastise
Any argument of the kind you should better first read xxx + yyy +. is
very weak. It is a pseudo killer argument against everything with no content
at all.
If xxx , yyy . contains really relevant information for the discussion
then it should be possible to quote the essential part with few
Thanks to Ben and Vlad for their help answering my question about how to
estimate the number of node assemblies A(N,O,S) one can get from a total set
of N nodes, where each assembly has a size of S, and a maximum overlap with
any other set of O. I am sorry I did not response sooner but I spend a
2008/10/20 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(There is a separate, philosophical discussion, about feasibility in a
different sense - the lack of a culture of feasibility, which is perhaps,
subconsciously what Ben was also referring to - no one, but no one, in
AGI, including Ben, seems
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The tables at http://www.research.att.com/~njas/codes/Andw/index.html#dist16
indicates the number of cell assemblies would, in fact be much larger than
the number of nodes, WHERE THE OVERLAP WAS RELATIVELY LARGE, which would
Matthias, still awaiting a response to this post, quoted below.
Thanks,
Terren
Matthias wrote:
I don't think that learning of language is the entire
point. If I have only
learned language I still cannot create anything. A human
who can understand
language is by far still no good
Just an idea - not sure if it would work or not - 3 lists: [AGI-1], [AGI-2],
[AGI-3]. Sub-content is determined by the posters themselves. Same amount of
emails initially but partitioned up.
Wonder what would happen?
John
---
agi
Archives:
Ben,
The most extreme case is if we happen to live in a universe with
uncomputable physics, which of course would violate the AIXI
assumption. This could be the case merely because we have physical
constants that have no algorithmic description (but perhaps still have
mathematical descriptions).
Terren wrote
Language understanding requires a sophisticated conceptual framework
complete with causal models, because, whatever meaning means, it must be
captured somehow in an AI's internal models of the world.
Conceptual framework is not well defined. Therefore I can't agree or
disagree.
Yes, if we live in a universe that has Turing-uncomputable physics, then
obviously AIXI is not necessarily going to be capable of adequately dealing
with that universe ... and nor is AGI based on digital computer programs
necessarily going to be able to equal human intelligence.
In that case, we
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said in my last email, since the Wikipedia article on constant
weight codes said APART FROM SOME TRIVIAL OBSERVATIONS, IT IS GENERALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPUTE THESE NUMBERS IN A STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY. And since all
of the
I also don't understand whether A(n,d,w) is the number of sets where the
hamming distance is exactly d (as it would seem from the text of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant-weight_code ), or whether it is the
number of set where the hamming distance is d or less. If the former case
is true
Mike, Vladimir, Ben, et al,
The mere presence of philosophy is proof positive that there are some
domains in which GI doesn't work well at all. Are those domains truly
difficult, or just ill adapted to GI? The mere existence of Dr. Eliza would
seem to be proof positive that those domains are NOT
Just to clarify one point: I am not opposed to philosophy, nor do I consider
it irrelevant to AGI. I wrote a book on my own philosophy of mind in 2006.
I just feel like the philosophical discussions tend to overwhelm the
pragmatic discussions on this list, and that a greater number of pragmatic
Samantha,
On 10/19/08, Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds good to me. I am much more drawn to topic #1. Topic #2 I have
seen discussed recursively and in dozens of variants multiple places. The
only thing I will add to Topic #2 is that I very seriously doubt current
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that there
is).
This is pretty profound. I never saw Ben Goertzel abolish the
scientific method. I think he explained that its implementation is
intractable, with reference
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that
there
is).
That is not what I said.
My views on the philosophy of science are given here:
Wait, now I'm confused.
I think I misunderstood your question.
Bounded-weight codes correspond to the case where the assemblies themselves
can have n or fewer neurons, rather than exactly n.
Constant-weight codes correspond to assemblies with exactly n neurons.
A complication btw is that an
Ben,
I agree that these issues don't need to have much to do with
implementation... William Pearson convinced me of that, since his
framework is about as general as general can get. His idea is to
search the space of *internal* programs rather than *external* ones,
so that we aren't assuming that
I think in the past there were always difficult technological problems
leading to a conceptual controversy how to solve these problems. Time has
always shown which approaches were successful and which were not successful.
The fact, that we have so many philosophical discussions show that we still
I am not sure about your statements 1 and 2. Generally responding,
I'll point out that uncomputable models may compress the data better
than computable ones. (A practical example would be fractal
compression of images. Decompression is not exactly a computation
because it never halts, we
Eric:
Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that
there
is).
This is pretty profound. I never saw Ben Goertzel abolish the
scientific method. I think he explained that its implementation is
intractable, with
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI.
But MW and I have not agreed on anything.
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination,
and creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This
My statement was
***
if you take any uncomputable universe U, there necessarily exists some
computable universe C so that
1) there is no way to distinguish U from C based on any finite set of
finite-precision observations
2) there is no finite set of sentences in any natural or formal language
I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them.
s/as I/inasmuch as I/
,_,
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the
hypothesis.
And MW has given not a tiny argument for his hypothesis that a natural
language understanding system can easily be a
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Any argument of the kind you should better first read xxx + yyy +… is
very weak. It is a pseudo killer argument against everything with no content
at all.
If xxx , yyy … contains really relevant information for
Ben,
I am interested in exactly the case where individual nodes partake in
multiple attractors,
I use the notation A(N,O,S) which is similar to the A(n,d,w) formula of
constant weight codes, except as Vlad says you would plug my varaiables into
the constant weight formula buy using A(N,
Ben,
[my statement] seems to incorporate the assumption of a finite
period of time because a finite set of sentences or observations must
occur during a finite period of time.
A finite set of observations, sure, but a finite set of statements can
include universal statements.
Fractal image
A conceptual framework starts with knowledge representation. Thus a symbol S
refers to a persistent pattern P which is, in some way or another, a reflection
of the agent's environment and/or a composition of other symbols. Symbols are
related to each other in various ways. These relations
Eric: I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them.
Eric,
My apologies if I've misconstrued you. Regardless of any fault, the basic
point was/is important. Even if a considerable percentage of science's
conclusions are v. hard, there is no definitive
The singularity list is probably more appropriate for philosophical discussions
about AGI. But good luck on moving such discussions to that list or a new list.
Philosophical arguments usually result from different interpretations of what
words mean. But usually the people doing the arguing
--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have a limited argument against these ideas, which has to do with
language. My point is that, if you take any uncomputable universe
U, there necessarily exists some computable universe C so that
1) there is no way to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
[my statement] seems to incorporate the assumption of a finite
period of time because a finite set of sentences or observations must
occur during a finite period of time.
A finite set of observations, sure, but a
But, suppose you have two assemblies A and B, which have nA and nB neurons
respectively, and which overlap in O neurons...
It seems that the system's capability to distinguish A from B is going to
depend on the specific **weight matrix** of the synapses inside the
assemblies A and B, not just on
--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I doubt that anyone can prove that
any system which understands natural language is
necessarily able to solve
the simple equation x *3 = y for a given y.
It can be solved with statistics. Take y = 12 and count
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I built an excel spread sheet to calculate this for various values of N,S,
and O. But when O = zero, the value of C(N,S)/T(N,S,O) doesn't make sense
for most values of N and S. For example if N = 100 and S = 10, and O =
42 matches
Mail list logo
