2008/11/21 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Battle-lines-forming-nascent-robotics/story.aspx?guid={FA2B30F1-B78B-4E33-91A4-F7F3D07DECCB}
The biggest growth area for robotics in the next few years I think is
going to be telerobots, allowing mobile
I stated a Ben's List challenge a while back that you apparently missed, so
here it is again.
You can ONLY learn how a system works by observation, to the extent that its
operation is imperfect. Where it is perfect, it represents a solution to the
environment in which it operates, and as
I note biotech research is being decimated by the current crisis:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109sid=a55.vWF5YPhArefer=home
Any similar problems for robotics and AGI-related research?
---
agi
Archives:
Steve Richfield wrote:
Richard,
On 11/20/08, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Richfield wrote:
Richard,
Broad agreement, with one comment from the end of your posting...
On 11/20/08, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL
Richard,
My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there
who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you
are in vehement agreement with the neuroscience community on this
point.
The idea that concepts may be represented by cell assemblies, or
attractors
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RL:So, to clarify: yes, it is perfectly true that the very low level
perceptual and motor systems use simple coding techniques. We have
known for decades (since Hubel and Weisel) that retinal ganglion cells
use simple
Ben: The idea that concepts may be represented by cell assemblies, or
attractors within cell assemblies, are more prevalent.
Ben,
My question was whether the concepts - or, to be precise, the terms of the
concepts, e.g. the sounds/ letters/word ball - may not be neuronally
locatable (not
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there
who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you
are in vehement agreement with the neuroscience community on this
point.
The idea that concepts may be represented by cell
And we don't yet know whether the assembly keeps reconfiguring its
reprsentation for conceptual knowledge ... though we know it's mainly
not true for percpetual and motor knowledge...
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben: The idea that concepts may be
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there
who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you
are in vehement agreement with the neuroscience
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there
who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you
are in vehement agreement
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, object-concepts and the like. Not place, motion or action 'concepts'.
For example, Quiroga et al showed their subjects pictures of famous places
and people, then made assertions about how those things were
I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available
neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural
knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions about neural
KR from available data involves loads of theoretical presuppositions
...
However, my view
2008/11/21 Charles Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The thing is, MS systems tend to be extremely inflexible. I.e., they are
flexible within their predefined fixed limitations, and outside of that you
need to constantly fight the system to get anywhere. To me this doesn't
sound like a good
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, object-concepts and the like. Not place, motion or action 'concepts'.
For example, Quiroga et al showed their subjects pictures of famous places
and people, then made assertions about how
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available
neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural
knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions about neural
KR from available data involves loads of theoretical presuppositions
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available
neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural
knowledge representation ... so that drawing conclusions
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They want some kind of mixture of sparse and multiply redundant and not
distributed. The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no
consistent interpretation of what they tried to give as their conclusion.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They want some kind of mixture of sparse and multiply redundant and not
distributed. The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I saw the main point of Richard's paper as being that the available
neuroscience data drastically underdetermines the nature of neural
knowledge representation ... so that
For those of you who don't read Kurzweil's mailing list, here is a link to
an article that describes progress being made in a type of brain/computer
interface that may in the future have the potential of provided a high
bandwidth communication with a reasonable percent of the cortex with minimal
Ben,
Entheogens!
What a great word/euphemism.
Is it pronounced like Inns (where travelers sleep) + Theo (short for
Theodore) + gins(a subset of liquors I normally avoid like the plague,
except in the occasional summer gin and tonic with lime)?
What is the respective emphasis given to each
On 11/21/08, Ed Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who don't read Kurzweil's mailing list, here is a link to
an article that describes progress being made in a type of brain/computer
interface that may in the future have the potential of provided a high
bandwidth communication
[agi] an advance in brain/computer interfacesForgive me if you've seen this,
but here's a. curious, (v. brief), mental association experiment.(Freaky Math
Trick)
Please do it first before reading on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCq3NFEB2bcfeature=related
My question is: how do they know
Hi,
I have said many times on this list that I believe there is nothing we know
about reality that is anything other than computing, and that there is
nothing we know about consciousness that is anything other than computing,
other than our sense of awareness, which can be considered an
Ben,
Thanks for responding.
I would deeply appreciate any clarification you could give to my several
questions below. (No need to respond immediately. And I have your book
The Hidden Pattern, so If there are any five to fifteen page section
therein that would help answer these questions
Bringing this back to the earlier discussion, What could be happening, not
to say that it is provably happening but there certainly is no evidence
(that I know of) against it, is the following, with probabilities
represented internally by voltages that are proportional to the logarithm of
the
Ben Goertzel wrote:
...my own belief that consciousness is the underlying
reality, and physical and computational systems merely *focus* this
consciousness in particular ways, is also not something that can be
proven empirically or logically...
For what it's worth, let me throw out a random
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They want some kind of mixture of sparse and multiply redundant and not
distributed. The whole point of what we wrote was that there is no
consistent interpretation of what they tried to give as
I don't think Qiroga et al's statements are contradictory, just
irritatingly vague...
I agree w Richard that the distributed vs sparse dichotomy is poorly
framed and in large part a bogus dichotomy
I feel the same way about the symbolic vs subsymbolic dichotomy...
Many of the conceptual
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I don't think Qiroga et al's statements are contradictory, just
irritatingly vague...
I agree w Richard that the distributed vs sparse dichotomy is poorly
framed and in large part a bogus dichotomy
I feel the same way about the symbolic vs subsymbolic dichotomy...
Many of
31 matches
Mail list logo
