Mike,
To put it into your own words here, mathematics is a delineation out of the
infinitely diversifiable, the same zone where design comes from. And
design needs a medium, the medium can be the symbolic expressions and
language of mathematics. And so conveniently here the mathematics is
I thought this was interesting when looked at in relation to evolution and a
parasitic intelligence -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/18/zombie-carpenter-ant-fungus
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS
integration of concepts and better
interpretation of concepts?
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
wrote
think the idea of performing useful work should be a goal).
The protocol is obviously a good idea, but you're not suggesting it per se
will lead to AGI?
From: John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:17 PM
To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
wrote:
The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically.
I don't understand this. Computers can represent related data objects
: John G. Rose mailto:johnr...@polyplexic.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:46 AM
To: agi mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] Nao Nao
I wasn't meaning to portray pessimism.
And that little sucker probably couldn't pick up a knife yet.
But this is a paradigm change
into the PC.
This is one topic for which I have not been able to have a satisfactory
discussion or answer. People who build robots tend to think in terms of
having the processing power on the robot. This I believe is wrong.
- Ian Parker
On 10 August 2010 00:06, John G. Rose johnr
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing
prototypes using familiar mathematical structures. I think the structure
has
to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical.
: David Jones [mailto:davidher...@gmail.com]
Way too pessimistic in my opinion.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
wrote:
Aww, so cute.
I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
sensory information back to the main servers
Actually this is quite critical.
Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair in the
supplied image - is the way a chair should be defined and is the way the
mind processes it.
It can be defined mathematically in many ways. There is a particular one I
would go for
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
The question for me is not what the
smallest pieces of visual information necessary to represent the range
and diversity of kinds of objects are, but how would these diverse
examples
be woven into highly compressed
notions no matter how good my arguments are and finds yet another reason,
any reason will do, to say I'm still wrong.
On Aug 9, 2010 2:18 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
Actually this is quite critical.
Defining a chair - which would agree with each instance of a chair
Aww, so cute.
I wonder if it has a Wi-Fi connection, DHCP's an IP address, and relays
sensory information back to the main servers with all the other Nao's all
collecting personal data in a massive multi-agent geo-distributed
robo-network.
So cuddly!
And I wonder if it receives and
to use the Mafia term and produce arguments
from the Qur'an against the militant position.
There would be quite a lot of contracts to be had if there were a realistic
prospect of doing this.
- Ian Parker
On 7 August 2010 06:50, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
Philosophical
statements of stupidity - some of these are examples of cramming
sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Language is both
intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between
agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, I had no choice but to ...
is a
-Original Message-
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of
similarity with
the human. Hence for a machine to be truly Turing it would have to make
mistakes. Now any useful system will be made as
You have to give toast though to Net entities like Wikipedia, I'd dare say
one of humankind's greatest achievements. Then eventually over a few years
it'll be available as a plug-in, as a virtual trepan thus reducing the
effort of subsuming all that. And then maybe structural intelligence add-ins
Here is an example of superimposed images where you have to have a
predisposed perception -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1m0kCdC7co
John
From: deepakjnath [mailto:deepakjn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 11:03 PM
To: agi
Subject: [agi] Clues to the Mind: Illusions /
-Original Message-
You have all missed one vital point. Music is repeating and it has a
symmetry.
In dancing (song and dance) moves are repeated in a symmetrical pattern.
Question why are we programmed to find symmetry? This question may be
more core to AGI than appears at first
Make sure you study that up YKY :)
John
From: YKY (Yan King Yin, 甄景贤) [mailto:generic.intellige...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:59 AM
To: agi
Subject: [agi] OFF-TOPIC: University of Hong Kong Library
Today, I went to the HKU main library:
=)
KY
agi |
-Original Message-
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
Ok Off topic, but not as far as you might think. YKY has posted in Creating
Artificial Intelligence on a collaborative project. It is quite important to
know
exactly where he is. You see Taiwan uses the classical
These video/rendered chatbots have huge potential and will be taken in many
different directions.
They are gradually over time approaching a p-zombie-esque situation.
They add multi-modal communication - body/facial language/expression and
prosody. So even if the text alone is not too good
Note:
Theorem 1.7.1 There eRectively exists a universal computer.
If you copy and paste this declaration the ff gets replaced with a circle
cap R :)
Not sure how this shows up...
John
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:50 AM
To: agi
An AGI may not really think like we do, it may just execute code.
Though I suppose you could program a lot of fuzzy loops and idle
speculation, entertaining possibilities, having human think envy..
John
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010
a function that simulates your mind for
some arbitrary purpose determined by its programmer.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
_
From: John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 11:39:23 AM
Subject: RE: [agi] masterpiece on an iPad
to
this conclusion I have the University of Surrey and CRESS in mind.
- Ian Parker
On 26 June 2010 14:36, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
How do you solve World Hunger? Does AGI have to. I think
-Original Message-
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
So an AGI would have to get established over a period of time for anyone
to
really care what it has to say about these types of issues. It could
simulate
things and come up with solutions but they would not get
-Original Message-
From: Ian Parker [mailto:ianpark...@gmail.com]
How do you solve World Hunger? Does AGI have to. I think if it is truly
G it
has to. One way would be to find out what other people had written on the
subject and analyse the feasibility of their solutions.
I think some confusion occurs where AGI researchers want to build an
artificial person verses artificial general intelligence. An AGI might be
just a computational model running in software that can solve problems
across domains. An artificial person would be much else in addition to AGI.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com]
My underlying thought here is that we may all be working on the wrong
problems. Instead of working on the particular analysis methods (AGI) or
self-organization theory (NN), perhaps if someone found a
, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com]
My underlying thought here is that we may all be working on the wrong
problems. Instead of working on the particular analysis methods
-Original Message-
From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com]
Really? Do networks such as botnets really care about this? Or does it
apply?
Anytime negative feedback can become positive feedback because of delays
or phase shifts, this becomes an issue. Many
. Appreciate it. What little EE training I did undergo was brief
and painful :)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:16 AM, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com
wrote:
Of course, there is the big question of just what it is that is being
attenuated in the bowels of an intelligent system. Usually
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Christopher Carr cac...@pdx.edu wrote:
Problems with IQ notwithstanding, I'm confident that, were my silly IQ
of 145 merely doubled, I could convince Dr. Goertzel to give me the
majority of his assets, including control
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:b...@goertzel.org]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:42 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [agi] initial reaction to A2I2's call center product
AGI company A2I2 has released a product for automating call center
functionality, see...
From: Bob Mottram [mailto:fuzz...@gmail.com]
2009/1/12 Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org:
AGI company A2I2 has released a product for automating call center
functionality
We value your interest in our AGI related service.
If you agree that AGI can have useful applications for call
test benchmark
Consciousness of X is: the idea or feeling that X is correlated with
Consciousness of X
;-)
ben g
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
What does consciousness have to do
is important for compression, then I suggest you write
two compression programs, one conscious and one not, and see which one
compresses better.
Otherwise, this is nonsense.
-- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com
--- On Tue, 12/30/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
From: John G. Rose johnr
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
--- On Sun, 12/28/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
So maybe for improved genetic
algorithms used for obtaining max compression there needs to be a
consciousness component in the agents? Just an idea I think
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
Agent knowledge is not only passed on in their
genes, it is also passed around to other agents Does agent death
hinder
advances in intelligence or enhance
Reading this -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23blin.html?ref=science
makes me wonder what other circuitry we have that's discouraged from being
accepted.
John
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
Well I think consciousness must be some sort of out of band
intelligence
that bolsters an entity in terms of survival. Intelligence probably
stratifies or optimizes
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
--- On Sat, 12/27/08, John G. Rose johnr...@polyplexic.com wrote:
How does consciousness fit into your compression
intelligence modeling?
It doesn't. Why is consciousness important?
I was just prodding you on this. Many
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
--- On Fri, 12/26/08, Philip Hunt cabala...@googlemail.com wrote:
Humans aren't particularly good at compressing data. Does this mean
humans aren't intelligent, or is it a poor definition of
intelligence?
Humans are very good at
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:matmaho...@yahoo.com]
How does consciousness fit into your compression
intelligence modeling?
It doesn't. Why is consciousness important?
I was just prodding you on this. Many people on this list talk about the
requirements of consciousness for AGI and I was
I've been experimenting with extending OOP to potentially implement
functionality that could make a particular AGI design easier to build.
The problem with SE is that it brings along much baggage that can totally
obscure AGI thinking.
Many AGI people and AI people are automatic top of the
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human-
level
GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a thing. It's a
cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any
thing
as a thing -
Mike,
Exercising rational thinking need not force exposure of oneself into being
sequestered as a rationalist. And utilizing creativity effectively requires
a context in some domain. The domain context typically involves application
of rationality. A temporary absence of creativity does not
Top posted here:
Using your bricks to construct something, you have to construct it within
constraints. Constraints is the key word. Whatever bricks you are using
they have their own limiting properties. You CANNOT build anything anyway
you please. Just by defining bricks you are already applying
From: Trent Waddington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For
example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it
is stuck in the eye with a needle
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness the
other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it can be
found at:
http://susaro.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf
Um...
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Three things.
First, David Chalmers is considered one of the world's foremost
researchers in the consciousness field (he is certainly now the most
celebrated). He has read the argument presented in my paper, and he
has
discussed it
From: Jiri Jelinek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:07 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
there are many computer systems now, domain specific intelligent ones
where their life is more
important than mine. Some would say that the battle is already lost.
For now
From: Jiri Jelinek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:41 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
is it really necessary for an AGI to be conscious?
Depends on how you define it. If you think it's about feelings/qualia
then - no - you don't need that [potentially
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought what he said was a good description more or less. Out of
600
millions years there may be only a fraction of that which is an
improvement
but it's still there.
How do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any other being
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John LaMuth wrote:
Reality check ***
Consciousness is an emergent spectrum of subjectivity spanning 600
mill.
years of
evolution involving mega-trillions of competing organisms, probably
selecting
for obscure quantum
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
True, we can't explain why the human brain needs 10^15 synapses to
store 10^9 bits of long term memory (Landauer's estimate). Typical
neural networks store 0.15 to 0.25 bits per synapse.
This study -
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't compute the universe within this universe
because the computation
would have to include itself.
Exactly. That is why our model of physics must be probabilistic
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI.
It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sure seems to me that the availability of cloud computing is
valuable
to the AGI project. There are some claims that maybe intelligent
programs
are still waiting on sufficient
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Russell Wallace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My suspicion though is that say you had 100 physical servers and then
100
physical cloud servers. You could hand tailor your distributed
From: Russell Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not talking custom hardware, when you take your existing app and
apply it to
the distributed resource and network topology (your 100 servers) you
can
structure
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cloud computing is compatible with my proposal for distributed AGI.
It's just not big enough. I would need 10^10 processors, each 10^3 to
10^6 times more powerful than a PC.
The only thing we have that come close to those numbers are insect
You can't compute the universe within this universe because the computation
would have to include itself.
Also there's not enough energy to power the computation.
But if the universe is not what we think it is, perhaps it is computable
since all kinds of assumptions are made about it,
From: Bob Mottram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beware of putting too much stuff into the cloud. Especially in the
current economic climate clouds could disappear without notice (i.e.
unrecoverable data loss). Also, depending upon terms and conditions
any data which you put into the cloud may
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Somewhat similarly, I've done coding on Windows before, but I dislike
the operating system quite a lot, so in general I try to avoid any
projects where I have to use it.
However, if I found some AGI project that I thought were more promising
Just an idea - not sure if it would work or not - 3 lists: [AGI-1], [AGI-2],
[AGI-3]. Sub-content is determined by the posters themselves. Same amount of
emails initially but partitioned up.
Wonder what would happen?
John
---
agi
Archives:
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As Ben has pointed out language understanding is useful to teach AGI.
But if
we use the domain of mathematics we can teach AGI by formal expressions
more
easily and we understand these expressions as well.
- Matthias
That is not clear --
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
... even an alien language far removed from any on Earth is likely to
have recognisable patterns that could help reveal how intelligent the
life forms are.
This is true unless the alien life form existed in mostly order and
communicated via the
This is cool it's kind of like a combo of Omni, a desktop publishing fanzine
with 3DSMax cover page, and randomly gathered techno tidbits all
encapsulated in a secure PDF.
The skin phone is neat and the super imposition eye contact lens by U-Dub
has value. I wonder where they got that idea from,
From: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Honestly, if the idea is to wave our hands at one another's ideas then
let's at least see something on the table. I'm happy to discuss my
work with natural language parsing and mood evaluation for
low-bandwidth human mimicry, for instance, because
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my opinion, the domain of software development is far too ambitious
for
the first AGI.
Software development is not a closed domain. The AGI will need at least
knowledge about the domain of the problems for which the AGI shall
write a
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically
on **how to make AGI work**.
Potentially, there could be another list, something like agi-
philosophy, devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other
discussions
From: BillK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree. I support more type 1 discussions.
I have felt for some time that an awful lot of time-wasting has been
going on here.
I think this list should mostly be for computer tech discussion about
methods of achieving specific results on the
From: Terren Suydam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a publicly accessible forum with searchable archives... you
don't necessarily have to be subscribed and inundated to find those
nuggets. I don't know any funding decision makers myself, but if I were
in control of a budget I'd be using
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, but in my drug-addled state I gave the wrong URI for the
Dangerous
Knowledge videos on YouTube. The one I gave was just to the first part
of
the Cantor segment. All of the segments can be reached from the link
below. You can recreate
From: John LaMuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I have previously written, this issue boils down as one is serious
or
one is not to be taken this way a meta-order perspective)... the key
feature in humor and comedy -- the meta-message being don't take me
seriously
That is why I
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sun, 9/7/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Language modeling (was Re: [agi] draft for comment)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 9:15 AM
From: Matt
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 9/6/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing
storage bits.
Not the way I use it. The goal is to predict what the environment will
do next. Lossless compression is a way
Thinking out loud here as I find the relationship between compression and
intelligence interesting:
Compression in itself has the overriding goal of reducing storage bits.
Intelligence has coincidental compression. There is resource management
there. But I do think that it is not ONLY
From: Harry Chesley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Searle's Chinese Room argument is one of those things that makes me
wonder if I'm living in the same (real or virtual) reality as everyone
else. Everyone seems to take it very seriously, but to me, it seems like
a transparently meaningless
Well, even though there was bloodshed, Edward was right on slamming Richard
on the complex systems issue. This issue needs to be vetted, sorted out,
either laid to rest or incorporated into other's ideas. Perhaps in some of
the scientist's minds it has been laid to rest. In my mind it is there,
, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, not especially familiar, but it sounds interesting. Personally I
am interested in learning formal grammars to describe data, and there
are well-established equivalences between grammars and automata, so
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, not especially familiar, but it sounds interesting. Personally I
am interested in learning formal grammars to describe data, and there
are well-established equivalences between grammars and automata, so
the approaches are somewhat compatible.
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John,
What kind of automata? Finite-state automata? Pushdown? Turing
machines? Does CA mean cellular automata?
--Abram
Hi Abram,
FSM, semiatomata, groups w/o actions, semigroups with action in the
observer, etc... CA is for cellular automata.
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In pattern recognition, are some patterns not expressible with
automata?
I'd rather say not easily/naturally expressible. Automata is not a
popular technique in pattern
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automata is usually used with a well-defined meaning. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory
On the contrary, pattern has many different usages in different
theories, though intuitively it indicates some observed structures
consisting of
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah, but now you are stating the Standard Reply, and what you have to
understand is that the Standard Reply boils down to this: We are so
smart that we will figure a way around this limitation, without having
to do any so crass as just
Well I can spend a lot of time replying this since it is a tough subject.
The CB system is a good example my thinking doesn't involve CB's yet so the
organized mayhem would be of a different form and I was thinking of the
complexity being integrated differently.
What you are saying makes sense in
Could you say that it takes a complex system to know a complex system? If an
AGI is going to try to say predict the weather, it doesn't have infinite cpu
cycles to simulate so it'll have to come up with something better. Sure it
can build a probabilistic historical model but that is kind of
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem of consciousness is not only a hard problem because of
unknown
mechanisms in the brain but it is a problem of finding the DEFINITION of
necessary conditions for consciousness.
I think, consciousness without intelligence is not
From: A. T. Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The abnormalis sapiens Herr Doktor Steve Richfield wrote:
Hey you guys with some gray hair and/or bald spots,
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING?
prin Goertzel genesthai, ego eimi
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mentifex_faq.html
My hair
From: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general intelligence some components and sub-components of
consciousness
need to be there and some don't. And some could be replaced with a human
operator as in an augmentation-like system. Also some components could
be
designed
John G. Rose wrote:
Does this mean that now maybe you can afford to integrate
some AJAX into that JavaScript AI mind of yours?
John
No, because I remain largely ignorant of Ajax.
http://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html
and the JavaScript Mind User Manual (JMUM) at
http
I don't think anyone anywhere on this list ever suggested time sequential
was required for consciousness. Now as data streams in from sensory
receptors that initially is time sequential. But as it is processed that
changes to where time is changed. And time is sort of like an index eh? Or
is time
She doesn't really expound on the fact that humans have the power to choose.
I think memetics and temes have potential. You can't deny their existence
but is it only that? Sure, my middle finger is a meme. But there is
mechanics behind it. And those mechanics have a lot of regression and
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you
might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the
dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that
rocks are not conscious.
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an
ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ED PORTER
I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph
structures
like semantic nets, are probably close to as efficient as possible
given
the
type of connectionism they are representing and the type of
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that it is for us in the modern day technological society. But
it may not have been always the case. We have been grounded by reason.
Before reason it may have been largely supernatural. That's why
sometimes I think AGI's could start off
1 - 100 of 267 matches
Mail list logo
