Jiri and Matt et al,
I'm getting v. confident about the approach I've just barely begun to
outline. Let's call it realistics - the title for a new, foundational
branch of metacognition, that will oversee all forms of information, incl.
esp. language, logic, and maths, and also all image
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To understand/realise is to be distinguished
from (I would argue) to comprehend statements.
How long are we going to go round and round with this? How do you know if a
machine comprehends something?
Turing explained why he ducked the
Matt,
What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it takes for any
agent, human or machine.to understand information .
You give me an extremely complicated and ultimately weird test/paper, which
presupposes that machines, humans and everyone else can only exhibit, and be
tested
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Rene de Visser wrote:
Any comments?
Yes. Please look into computational complexity and Big O notation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity
Computational complexity theory, as a branch of the theory of
computation in computer science,
On Friday 12 September 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
to understand a piece of information and its information objects,
(eg words) , is to realise (or know) how they refer to real
objects in the real world, (and, ideally, and often necessarily, to
be able to point to and engage with those real
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
I have asked this list as well as the singularity and SL4 lists
whether there are any non-evolutionary models (mathematical,
software, physical, or biological) for recursive self improvement
(RSI), i.e. where the parent and not the
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Bryan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Matt Mahoney wrote:
I have asked this list as well as the singularity and
SL4 lists
whether there are any non-evolutionary models
(mathematical,
software, physical, or biological) for recursive
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it
takes for any
agent, human or machine.to understand information .
How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a computer for
human intelligence if
From http://machineslikeus.com/news/time-teaches-brain-how-recognize-objects
In work that could aid efforts to develop more brain-like computer vision
systems, MIT neuroscientists have tricked the visual brain into confusing
one object with another, thereby demonstrating that time teaches us how
Matt: How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a
computer for human intelligence if you have never programmed a computer?
Matt,
We simply have a big difference of opinion. I'm saying there is no way a
computer [or agent, period] can understand language if it can't
Mike,
How will you understand, and recognize when information objects/ e.g
language/words are unreal ? e.g. Turn yourself inside out.
... unreal/untrue/metaphorical in different and sometimes multiple
simultaneous ways
It's like teaching a baby. You don't want to use confusing
11 matches
Mail list logo
