On Tuesday 22 April 2008 01:22:14 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
wonderfully predictable orbits.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13757-solar-system-could-go-haywire-before-the-sun-dies.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
How
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 01:22:14 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
wonderfully predictable orbits.
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H I detect a parody..?
That is not what I intended to say.
No, as horrible as it may sound, this is how I see the problem that
you are trying to address. If you can pinpoint some
J Andrew Rogers writes: Most arguments and disagreements over complexity are
fundamentally about the strict definition of the term, or the complete
absence thereof. The arguments tend to evaporate if everyone is forced to
unambiguously define such terms, but where is the fun in that.
I agree
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between theoretical
models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at least 1980,
and one thing I have noticed is that people devise theoretical
structures
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
we must assume that we will never
How confident are you that this only-complex-AI limitation applies in
reality? How much would you bet on it? I'm not convinced, and I think
that if you are convinced too much, you made wrong conclusions from
your data, unless you communicated too little of what formed your
intuition.
I am
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
we must
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing I'm
trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: There's a piece called a 'knight'. It
moves by going two squares in one direction and then one in a perpendicular
direction. And here's something neat:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing
I'm trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: There's a piece called a 'knight'.
It moves by going two squares in one direction
Stephen Reed writes:
Hey Texai, let's program
[Texai] I don't know how to program, can you teach me by yourself?
Sure, first thing is that a program consists of statements that each does
something
[Texai] I assume by program you mean a sequence of instructions that a
computer can interpret and
]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:43:37 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
.hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Stephen Reed writes:
Hey Texai, let's
.
-Original Message-
From: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:33 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try
Vladimir Nesov writes: Generating concepts out of thin air is no big deal,
if only a resource-hungry process. You can create a dozen for each episode,
for example.
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a dozen get
generated instead... now I have twelve times as many things to explain. If
you
: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Vladimir Nesov writes:
Generating concepts out of thin air is no big deal, if only a
resource
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when people are given a sentence such as the one you quoted about verbs,
pronouns, and nouns, presuming they have some knowledge of most of the words
in the sentence, they will understand the concept that verbs are doing
words. This is
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
There is no evidence you are more justified in laughing at my position than
I am in saying your complexity issues do not appear to represent a major
unsolved conceptual issues.
Remember I am not denying complexity issues don't exist. Instead I am
saying it is not
Richard Loosemore: I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the
general complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved.
I laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confident are you that this
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek,
I'll not paraphrase
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when people are given a sentence such as the one you quoted about
verbs,
pronouns, and nouns, presuming they have some knowledge
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
There is no evidence you are more justified
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confident
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
I read you Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Theoretical
Psychology article, and I still don't know what your are talking about
other than the game of life. I know you make a distinction between Richard
and non-Richard complexity. I understand
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek,
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between
theoretical models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at
least 1980, and one thing I have noticed is that people devise
theoretical structures that are based on the
27 matches
Mail list logo
