Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
Because some folks find that they are not subjectively
sufficient to explain everything they subjectively experience...
That would be more convincing if such people were to show evidence
that they understand what algorithmic processes are and
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:10 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
and...@ceruleansystems.com mailto:and...@ceruleansystems.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The
I suppose it would be more accurate to state that every process we
can
Hector Zenil wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Hector Zenil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I don't get your point at all, because the
A response to:
I wondered why anyone would deface the
expression of his own thoughts with an emotional and hostile message,
My theory is that thoughts are generated internally and forced into words via a
babble generator. Then the thoughts are filtered through a screen to remove
any that
A general approach to this that frequently works is to examine the
definitions that you are using for ambiguity. Then to look for
operational tests. If the only clear meanings lack operational tests,
then it's probably worthless to waste computing resources on the problem
until those
Well.
The speed of light limitation seems rather secure. So I would propose
that we have been visited by roboticized probes, rather than by
naturally evolved creatures. And the energetic constraints make it seem
likely that they were extremely small and infrequent...though I suppose
that
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Eliezer Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shane Legg, I don't mean to be harsh, but your attempt to link
Kolmogorov complexity to intelligence is causing brain damage among
impressionable youths.
( Link debunked here:
Acilio Mendes wrote:
My question is: how do they know your vegetable association?
...
Try this experiment: repeat the same procedure of the video, but
instead of asking for a vegetable, ask for an 'an animal that lives in
the jungle'. Most people will answer 'Lion' even though lions don't
Robert Swaine wrote:
Conciousness is akin to the phlogiston theory in chemistry. It is likely a
shadow concept, similar to how the bodily reactions make us feel that the heart
is the seat of emotions. Gladly, cardiologist and heart surgeons do not look
for a spirit, a soul, or kindness in
, then in my opinion we've made important
headway.
I think I found the logics you're referring to? Looks *very* interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-verifying_theories
--Abram
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It all depends on what definition
is that it is important to examine
the simplifications and abstractions, and discover how they work, so
that we can ease computation in our implementations.
--Abram
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you were talking about something actual, then you
.
Abram Demski wrote:
Charles,
Interesting point-- but, all of these theories would be weaker then
the standard axioms, and so there would be *even more* about numbers
left undefined in them.
--Abram
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me, but I
If not verify, what about falsify? To me Occam's Razor has always been
seen as a tool for selecting the first argument to attempt to falsify.
If you can't, or haven't, falsified it, then it's usually the best
assumption to go on (presuming that the costs of failing are evenly
distributed).
Excuse me, but I thought there were subsets of Number theory which were
strong enough to contain all the integers, and perhaps all the rational,
but which weren't strong enough to prove Gödel's incompleteness theorem
in. I seem to remember, though, that you can't get more than a finite
number
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what's the connection according to you between
viruses and illness/disease, heating water and boiling,
force applied to object and acceleration of object?
Observing illness causes me to believe a virus
Dr. Matthias Heger wrote:
The goal of chess is well defined: Avoid being checkmate and try to
checkmate your opponent.
What checkmate means can be specified formally.
Humans mainly learn chess from playing chess. Obviously their knowledge
about other domains are not sufficient for most
Abram Demski wrote:
Ben,
...
One reasonable way of avoiding the humans are magic explanation of
this (or humans use quantum gravity computing, etc) is to say that,
OK, humans really are an approximation of an ideal intelligence
obeying those assumptions. Therefore, we cannot understand the math
identical processing power and storage space, then
the winner will be the one that was able to assimilate and model each problem
space the most efficiently, on average. Which ultimately means the one which
used the *least* amount of overall computation.
Terren
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Charles Hixson
If you want to argue this way (reasonable), then you need a specific
definition of intelligence. One that allows it to be accurately
measured (and not just in principle). IQ definitely won't serve.
Neither will G. Neither will GPA (if you're discussing a student).
Because of this, while I
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Jim,
I really don't have time for a long debate on the historical
psychology of scientists...
To give some random examples though: Newton, Leibniz and Gauss were
certainly obnoxious, egomaniacal pains in the ass though ... Edward
Teller ... Goethe, whose stubbornness
Dr. Matthias Heger wrote:
*Ben G wrote*
**
Well, for the purpose of creating the first human-level AGI, it seems
important **to** wire in humanlike bias about space and time ... this
will greatly ease the task of teaching the system to use our language
and communicate with us effectively...
Ben Goertzel wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
I have heard the argument for point 2 before, in the book by Pinker,
How the Mind Works. It is the inverse-optics problem: physics can
predict what image
Mike Tintner wrote:
Ben:I didn't read that book but I've read dozens of his papers ...
it's cool stuff but does not convince me that engineering AGI is
impossible ... however when I debated this with Stu F2F I'd say
neither of us convinced each other ;-) ...
Ben,
His argument (like mine),
Abram Demski wrote:
Charles,
Again as someone who knows a thing or two about this particular realm...
Math clearly states that to derive all the possible truths from a numeric
system as strong as number theory requires an infinite number of axioms.
Yep.
I.e., choices. This is
I would go further. Humans have demonstrated that they cannot be
trusted in the long term even with the capabilities that we already
possess. We are too likely to have ego-centric rulers who make
decisions not only for their own short-term benefit, but with an
explicit After me the deluge
Dawkins tends to see an truth, and then overstate it. What he says
isn't usually exactly wrong, so much as one-sided. This may be an
exception.
Some meanings of group selection don't appear to map onto reality.
Others map very weakly. Some have reasonable explanatory power. If you
don't
Matt Mahoney wrote:
An AGI will not design its goals. It is up to humans to define the
goals of an AGI, so that it will do what we want it to do.
Are you certain that this is the optimal approach? To me it seems more
promising to design the motives, and to allow the AGI to design it's own
to pass the
Turing test (or win either of the two, one-time-only, Loebner Prizes)
is a waste of precious time and intellectual resources.
Thought experiments? No problem. Discussing ideas? No problem.
Human-like AGI? Big problem.
Cheers,
Brad
Charles Hixson wrote:
Play is a form
Play is a form a strategy testing in an environment that doesn't
severely penalize failures. As such, every AGI will necessarily spend a
lot of time playing.
If you have some other particular definition, then perhaps I could
understand your response if you were to define the term.
OTOH, if
Jonathan El-Bizri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Terren Suydam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If an AGI played because it recognized that it would improve its
skills in some domain, then I wouldn't call that play, I'd call it
practice. Those are
This is probably quibbling over a definition, but:
Jim Bromer wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Bromer wrote:
As far as I can tell, the idea of making statistical calculation about
what we don't know is only relevant for three conditions
Brad Paulsen wrote:
...
Sigh. Your point of view is heavily biased by the unspoken assumption
that AGI must be Turing-indistinguishable from humans. That it must
be AGHI. This is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just the wrong idea
given our (lack of) understanding of general intelligence.
Jim Bromer wrote:
In most situations this is further limited because one CAN'T know all of the
consequences. So one makes probability calculations weighting things not
only by probability of occurrence, but also by importance. So different
individuals disagree not only on the definition of
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Mike Tintner wrote:
That illusion is partly the price of using language, which fragments
into pieces what is actually a continuous common sense, integrated
response to the world.
Mike,
Excellent observation. I've said it many times before: language is
analog human
Jim Bromer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point I think it relevant to bring in an assertion from Larry Niven
(Protector):
Paraphrase: When you understand all the consequences of an act, then you
don't have free will. You must choose
Brad Paulsen wrote:
... Nope. Wrong again. At least you're consistent. That line
actually comes from a Cheech and Chong skit (or a movie -- can't
remember which at the moment) where the guys are trying to get
information by posing as cops. At least I think that's the setup.
When the
Jim Bromer wrote:
...
I mostly agree with your point of view, and I am not actually saying
that your technical statements are wrong. I am trying to explain that
there is something more to be learned. The apparent paradox can be
reduced to the never ending deterministic vs free will argument.
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's
(which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth
...).
Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in
Charles Hixson wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of
Richard's
(which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and
so forth
...).
Some of your emails
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 03:08:55 am Valentina Poletti wrote:
lol.. well said richard.
the stimuli simply invokes no signiticant response and thus our brain
concludes that we 'don't know'. that's why it takes no effort to realize
it. agi algorithms should be built in a similar way, rather than
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 04:12:27 pm Brad Paulsen wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
All,
Here's a question for you:
What does fomlepung mean?
If your immediate (mental) response was I don't know. it means
you're not a slang-slinging Norwegian. But, how did
On Monday 28 July 2008 07:04:01 am YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
Here is an example of a problematic inference:
1. Mary has cybersex with many different partners
2. Cybersex is a kind of sex
3. Therefore, Mary has many sex partners
4. Having many sex partners - high chance of getting STDs
On Monday 28 July 2008 09:30:08 am YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
On 7/29/08, Charles Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the logical argument. What's wrong is that
you are presuming a purely declarative logic approach can work...which it
can in extremely simple
On Thursday 03 July 2008 11:14:15 am Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:36 PM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:...
I know this doesn't have the properties you would look for in a
friendly AI set to dominate the world. But I think it is similar to
the way humans work,
and valuations.
I have a project which I am aiming at that area, but it is barely
getting started.
-- Ben
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/
--
-- Charles Hixson
Gnu software that is free
The problem with a truly general intelligence is that the search spaces
are too large. So one uses specializing hueristics to cut down the
amount of search space. This does, however, inevitably remove a piece
of the generality. The benefit is that you can answer more
complicated questions
46 matches
Mail list logo
