LOL. I didn't even realize that this was not his main website until today. I
must say that it seems very well put. Sorry Arthur :S
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Chris Petersen wrote:
> Don't fret; your main site's got good uptime.
>
> http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
>
> -Chris
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> Oh yeah. I forgot about some of Arthur's claims about Mentiflex which
> seemed a bit exaggerated. Oh well.
> Jim Bromer
>
World War II was a bit of a tussle, too.
-Chris
---
agi
Archives: https:/
Oh yeah. I forgot about some of Arthur's claims about Mentiflex which
seemed a bit exaggerated. Oh well.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> Arthur,
> The section from "The Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex", "FAQ, 2.3 What do
> researchers in academia think of Murray’s wo
Sure. Thanks Arthur.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:42 AM, A. T. Murray wrote:
> David Jones wrote:
> >
> >Arthur,
> >
> >Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
> >things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get
> >bored of maintaining or upda
Arthur,
The section from "The Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex", "FAQ, 2.3 What do
researchers in academia think of Murray’s work?", really puts you into a
whole other category in my view. The rest of us can only dream of such
dismissals from "experts" who haven't achieved anything more than the rest
of
Don't fret; your main site's got good uptime.
http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
-Chris
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, A. T. Murray wrote:
> David Jones wrote:
> >
> >Arthur,
> >
> >Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
> >things. I am sometimes
David Jones wrote:
>
>Arthur,
>
>Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
>things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get
>bored of maintaining or updating it very quickly :)
>
>Dave
>
>On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM, A. T. Murray wrote:
>
Arthur,
Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get
bored of maintaining or updating it very quickly :)
Dave
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM, A. T. Murray wrote:
> The Web site of David Jones a
The Web site of David Jones at
http://practicalai.org
is quite impressive to me
as a kindred spirit building AGI.
(Just today I have been coding MindForth AGI :-)
For his "Practical AI Challenge" or similar
ventures, I would hope that David Jones is
open to the idea of aggregating or archiving
lol. thanks Jim :)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Jim Bromer wrote:
> I have to say that I am proud of David Jone's efforts. He has really
> matured during these last few months. I'm kidding but I really do respect
> the fact that he is actively experimenting. I want to get back to work o
I have to say that I am proud of David Jone's efforts. He has really
matured during these last few months. I'm kidding but I really do respect
the fact that he is actively experimenting. I want to get back to work on
my artificial imagination and image analysis programs - if I can ever figure
ou
you WON'T win? Actually that is almost certainly being
> extremely kind - you do have a chance of winning the lottery.
>
> --
> From: "Michael Swan"
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:17 AM
> To: "agi"
>
certainly being
extremely kind - you do have a chance of winning the lottery.
--
From: "Michael Swan"
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:17 AM
To: "agi"
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Sun, 2010-06-27
m a hyper version of the TSP problem,
> where the towns can move around, and you can't be sure
> whether they'll be there when you arrive. Or is there
> an "obviously true" solution for th
Mike,
you are mixing multiple issues. Just like my analogy of the rubix cube, full
AGI problems involve many problems at the same time. The problem I wrote
this email about was not about how to solve them all at the same time. It
was about how to solve one of those problems. After solving the prob
viously true solutions].
>
>
> *From:* Jim Bromer
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:53 PM
> *To:* agi
> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
>
> Ben: I'm quite sure a simple narrow AI system could be constructed to beat
> humans at Pong ;p
> M
ons].
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:53 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Ben: I'm quite sure a simple narrow AI system could be constructed to beat
humans at Pong ;p
Mike: Well, Ben, I'm glad you're "quite sure" becau
just like deciding whether to invest in
> shares. And competitive sports are built on such dilemmas.
>
> Welcome to the real world of AGI problems. You should get to know it.
>
> And as this example (and my rock wall problem) indicate, these problems can
> be as simple and accessible
can be
as simple and accessible as fairly easy narrow AI problems.
From: Ben Goertzel
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:33 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
That's a rather bizarre suggestion Mike ... I'm quite sure a simple narrow AI
system could be co
I am working on logical satisfiability again. If what I am working on right
now works, it will become a pivotal moment in AGI, and what's more, the
method that I am developing will (probably) become a core method for AGI.
However, if the idea I am working on does not -itself- lead to a major
break
deal with a world of
> objects that have some consistencies but overall are inconsistent, irregular
> and come in open sets. The perfect regularities and consistencies of
> geometrical figures and mechanical motion (and boxes moving across a screen)
> were only invented very recently.
>
>
&g
2010 5:57 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Jim,
Two things.
1) If the method I have suggested works for the most simple case, it is quite
straight forward to add complexity and then ask, how do I solve it now. If you
can't solve that case, there is no way in he
Jim,
Two things.
1) If the method I have suggested works for the most simple case, it is
quite straight forward to add complexity and then ask, how do I solve it
now. If you can't solve that case, there is no way in hell you will solve
the full AGI problem. This is how I intend to figure out how
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Jim :This illustrates one of the things wrong with the
> dreary instantiations of the prevailing mind set of a group. It is only a
> matter of time until you discover (through experiment) how absurd it is to
> celebrate the triumph of an ov
Jim,
I am using over simplification to identify the core problems involved. As
you can see, the over simplification is revealing how to resolve certain
types of dilemmas and uncertainty. That is exactly why I did this. If you
can't solve a simple environment, you certainly can't solve the full
env
The fact that you are using experiment and the fact that you recognized that
AGI needs to provide both explanation and expectations (differentiated from
the false precision of 'prediction') shows that you have a grasp of some of
the philosophical problems, but the fact that you would rely on a prim
lol.
Mike,
What I was trying to express by the word *expect* is NOT predict [some exact
outcome]. Expect means that the algorithm has a way of comparing
observations to what the algorithm considers to be consistent with an
"explanation". This is something I struggled to solve for a long time
rega
>
> To put it more succinctly, Dave & Ben & Hutter are doing the wrong subject
> - narrow AI. Looking for the one right prediction/ explanation is narrow
> AI. Being able to generate more and more possible explanations, wh. could
> all be valid, is AGI. The former is rational, uniform thinking.
me old,
closed predictable, artificial world. When will you have the courage to face
this?
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:21 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones wrote:
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones wrote:
> A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning:*Here is
> a simplified version of how we solve case study 1:
> *The important hypotheses to consider are:
> 1) the square from frame 1 of the video that has a very close positio
For visual perception, there are many reasons to think that a hierarchical
architecture can be effective... this is one of the things you may find in
dealing with real visual data but not with these toy examples...
E.g. in a spatiotemporal predictive hierarchy, the idea would be to create a
predic
Thanks Ben,
Right, explanatory reasoning not new at all (also called abduction and
inference to the best explanation). But, what seems to be elusive is a
precise and algorithm method for implementing explanatory reasoning and
solving real problems, such as sensory perception. This is what I'm hopi
Hi,
I certainly agree with this method, but of course it's not original at all,
it's pretty much the basis of algorithmic learning theory, right?
Hutter's AIXI for instance works [very roughly speaking] by choosing the
most compact program that, based on historical data, would have yielded
maximu
en't realistic tests. Subject yourself to reality - it'll feel better every
which way.
From: David Jones
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:31 AM
To: agi
Subject: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning:
We prefer the
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning: *
We prefer the hypothesis or explanation that ***expects* more observations.
If both explanations expect the same observations, then the simpler of the
two is preferred (because the unnecessary terms of the more complicated
explana
35 matches
Mail list logo
