On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Ricky Loynd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vladimir, that's a nice, tight overview of a design. What drives the
> creation/deletion of nodes?
>
In current design, skills are extended through relearning and
fine-tuning of existing circuits. Roughly, new memories are
Vladimir, that's a nice, tight overview of a design. What drives the
creation/deletion of nodes?
Ricky Loynd
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:28:36 +0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> agi@v2.listbox.com> Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be
> Studied
Ben Goertzel wrote:
But enough of that, let's get to the meat of it: Are you arguing that the
function that is a neuron is not an elementary operator for whatever
computational model describes the brain?
We don't know which "function that describes a neuron" we need to use --
are Izhikevich's
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But enough of that, let's get to the meat of it: Are you arguing that the
>> function that is a neuron is not an elementary operator for whatever
>> computational model describes the brain?
>>
>
> We don't know which "fu
>
> But enough of that, let's get to the meat of it: Are you arguing that the
> function that is a neuron is not an elementary operator for whatever
> computational model describes the brain?
>
We don't know which "function that describes a neuron" we need to use --
are Izhikevich's nonlinear dyn
Regarding how much of the complexity of real neurons we would need to
put into a computational neural net model in order to make a model
displaying a realistic emulation of neural behavior -- the truth is
we JUST DON'T KNOW
Izhikevich for instance
http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/izhikevich/human_br
On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I directly and exactly *quoted* several passages that you wrote.
And completely ignored both the context and intended semantics. Hence
why I might be under the impression that there is a reading
comprehension issue.
But enough of th
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
But that is a world away from the idea that neurons, as they are, are
as simple as transistors. I do not believe this was a simple
misunderstanding on my part: the claim that neurons are as simple as
transistors is
On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
But that is a world away from the idea that neurons, as they are,
are as simple as transistors. I do not believe this was a simple
misunderstanding on my part: the claim that neurons are as simple
as transistors is an unsupportable one.
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Richard Loosemore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But I have no problem with this at all! :-). This is exactly
what I believe, but I was arguing against a different claim! Rogers
did actually say that "neurons are simple" and then went on t
On Jun 7, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Richard Loosemore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But I have no problem with this at all! :-). This is exactly
what I
believe, but I was arguing against a different claim! Rogers did
actually
say that "ne
Richard said
But I have no problem with this at all! :-). This is exactly what I
believe, but I was arguing against a different claim! Rogers did
actually
say that "neurons are simple" and then went on to claim that they were
simple because (essentially) you could black-box them with som
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But I have no problem with this at all! :-). This is exactly what I
> believe, but I was arguing against a different claim! Rogers did actually
> say that "neurons are simple" and then went on to claim that they
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The example was a strawman?
It was a precise analogue of the situation we are talking about, so calling
it a strawman, or calling it irrelevant, is just a way of avoiding what I
said.
I was refer
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The example was a strawman?
>
> It was a precise analogue of the situation we are talking about, so calling
> it a strawman, or calling it irrelevant, is just a way of avoiding what I
> said.
>
> I was refering to a sp
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This misses the point I think.
It all has to do with the mistake of *imposing* simplicity on something by
making a black-box model of it.
For example, the Ptolemy model of planetary motion impose
I had said:
>> I believe that these mysteries of conceptual complexity (or ideological
>> interactions) can be discovered through discussion and experiment so long
>> as that effort is not thwarted by the expression of immature negative
>> emotions and abusive anti-intellectual rants. While so
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Anyone at the time who knew that Isaac Newton was trying to do could
have dismissed his efforts and said "Idiot! Planetary motion is simple.
Ptolemy explained it in a simple way. I use simplicity-preferring
prior, so epicycles are good enough for me."
Which is why t
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep. All 3.5 billion years with uncountable numbers of examples. Like I
> said, "Good luck!"
>
Evolution is incredibly slow and short-sighted, compared to intelligence.
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Yep. All 3.5 billion years with uncountable numbers of examples. Like I
said, "Good luck!"
- Original Message -
From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Stud
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good luck with your blank slate AI.
>
Remember about the blank slate evolution...
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=no
Good luck with your blank slate AI.
Maybe you should read some Steven Pinker about blank slate humans.
- Original Message -
From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studie
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To believe that you need
>> something more complex, you need evidence.
>
> Yes, and the evidence that you need something more complex is overwhelming
> in this case (if you have anywhere near adequate knowledge of the field).
Speaking of neurons and simplicity, I think it's interesting that some of the
"how much cpu power needed to replicate brain function" arguments use the basic
ANN model, assuming a MULADD per synapse, updating at say 100 times per second
(giving a total computing power of about 10^16 OPS). But t
- yet, you and J.R. wish to
sweep it all away in the interest of mindless simplicity.
- Original Message -
From: "Vladimir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Mon, Ju
AIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This misses the point I think.
It all has to do with the mistake of *imposing* simpl
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At any rate, as Richard points out, y'all are so far from reality that
> arguing with you is not a wise use of time. Do what you want to do. The
> proof will be in how far you get.
>
I don't know what you mean. This parti
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This misses the point I think.
>
> It all has to do with the mistake of *imposing* simplicity on something by
> making a black-box model of it.
>
> For example, the Ptolemy model of planetary motion imposed a 'simple'
imir Nesov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But, why "SHOULD" there be a *simple* model that
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But, why "SHOULD" there be a *simple* model that produces the same
capabilities?
What if the brain truly is a conglomeration of many complex interacting
pieces?
Because unless I know otherwise, I use
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But, why "SHOULD" there be a *simple* model that produces the same
> capabilities?
>
> What if the brain truly is a conglomeration of many complex interacting
> pieces?
>
Because unless I know otherwise, I use simplicity-pre
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Jun 1, 2008, at 5:02 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
But this statement is such a blatant contradiction of all the
known facts about neurons, that I am surprised that abyone would try
to defend it. Real neurons are complicated, and their actual
functional role
On Jun 1, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
What if the brain truly is a conglomeration of many complex
interacting
pieces?
Are we using the pedestrian sense of "complex" when talking about
computational models and AI? Seems like an inappropriate overloading
of its more technical and
On Jun 1, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
Yeah. Those pesky chemicals like adrenaline etc. have absolutely no
objective function whatsoever and absolutely zero effect on the
functioning
of the brain.
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. Describe the
function of ad
On Jun 1, 2008, at 5:02 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
But this statement is such a blatant contradiction of all the
known facts about neurons, that I am surprised that abyone would try
to defend it. Real neurons are complicated, and their actual
functional role in the brain is still
oever and absolutely zero effect on the functioning
of the brain.
Don't bother responding. I'm kill-filing you from here on out.
- Original Message -
From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideo
What a bizarre discussion.
This branch started when J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
Neurons *are* simple, analogous to a transistor
But this statement is such a blatant contradiction of all the known
facts about neurons, that I am surprised that abyone would try to defend
it. Real neuro
On Jun 1, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
I find it very interesting that you can't even answer a straight yes-
or-no question without resorting to obscuring BS and inventing
strawmen.
By "obscuring BS and inventing strawmen" I assume you mean answers
that do not fit into your narrow
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, this is not a variant of the "analog is fundamentally different from
> digital category".
>
> Each of the things that I mentioned could be implemented digitally --
> however, they are entirely new classes of things to cons
s is irrelevant or
are you modeling it?
Two simple questions. Two choices for each. Try answering them without the
obscuring BS.
- Original Message -
From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological
On Jun 1, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
So . . . . given that the biological neurons have all this
additional complexity that I have listed before, are you going to
attempt to implement it or are you going to declare it as
unnecessary (with the potential that, if you are wrong, you ma
)?
- Original Message -
From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
What do you mean by computationally simple?
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
What do you mean by computationally simple?
Meaning there is a trivial set of functions and/or computational model
that captures the utility. No need to accommodate patterns below the
very high noise floor of wetware or which do not have a ma
AIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
Neurons are *NOT* simple. There are all sorts of physiological features
that affect their behavior, etc. While I totally
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
Neurons are *NOT* simple. There are all sorts of physiological
features that affect their behavior, etc. While I totally agree
with your point about "Not only do you have to invent several new
layers of abstraction, you also have to invent th
Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
On Jun 1, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
One is elegance. It would be "oh, so nice" to find one idea that would
solve the entire problem. After all, everyone knows that the single
On Jun 1, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Mark Waser wrote:
One is elegance. It would be "oh, so nice" to find one idea that
would solve the entire problem. After all, everyone knows that the
single concept of "neurons" is what our brains are built
upon . . . . The problem is that they then take an i
- Original Message -
From: Jim Bromer
Subject: [agi] Ideological Interactions Need to be Studied
An excellent thoughtful post. Thank you!
During the past few years, I have often made critical remarks about AI
theories that suggested that some basic method, and especially some
rather
48 matches
Mail list logo
