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
Subject: Re: [agi] Building a machine that can learn from experience
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 1:09 AM
YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
DARPA buys G.Tononi for 4.9 $Million! For what amounts to little more
than vague hopes that any of us here could have
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Dec 18, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I think I covered this in a post a while back but FYI... I am a
little 'left-field' in the AGI circuit in that my approach involves
literal replication of the electromagnetic field structure of brain
material. This is
Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Colin,
Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness,
does your position vary substantially from what is written there?
Thanks,
Terren
JJ McF, SueP and ERoyJohn all basically say the EM Field /is/
conscious(ness).
In that
On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
The answer to this is that you can implement it in software. But you
won't do that because the result is not an AGI, but an actor with a
script. I actually started AGI believing that software would do it.
When I got into the details of the
Colin,
It is of course possible that human intelligence relies upon
electromagnetic-field sensing that goes beyond the traditional five
senses.
However, this argument
Functionally, the key behaviour I use to test my approach is scientific
behaviour. If you sacrifice the full EM field, an AGI
Goodness. I have to tell you, Colin, your style of discourse just SOUNDS so
insane and off-base, it requires constant self-control on my part to look
past that and focus on any interesting ideas that may exist amidst all the
peculiarity!!
And if **I** react that way, others must react that way
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
The answer to this is that you can implement it in software. But you
won't do that because the result is not an AGI, but an actor with a
script. I actually started AGI believing that software would do it. When
I got
*
d) 75 years of computer-based-AGI failure - has sent me a message that no
amount of hubris on my part can overcome. As a scientist I must be informed
by empirical outcomes, not dogma or wishful thinking.
*
That argument really is a foolish one not worth paying attention to.
I mean, it
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Goodness. I have to tell you, Colin, your style of discourse just
SOUNDS so insane and off-base, it requires constant self-control on my
part to look past that and focus on any interesting ideas that may
exist amidst all the peculiarity!!
And if **I** react that way,
You can't deliver any evidence at all that the processes I am investigating
are invalid.
True, and you can't deliver any evidence that once AGIs reach an IQ of 1000,
aliens will contact them and welcome them to the Trans-Universal Club of
Really Clever Beings.
In fact, I won't be at all
On Dec 19, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I'm not clear how you came to the conclusion that I was discussing
an 'algorithmic system'.
You, like the rest of us, are incapable of discussing anything else.
Email cannot carry non-algorithmic ideas or concepts. Just because
you do
You, like the rest of us, are incapable of discussing anything else. Email
cannot carry non-algorithmic ideas or concepts. Just because you do not
consider your system algorithmic does not mean that it is not. Nature is
algorithmic, your chip is algorithmic, everything is algorithmic. That
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Colin,
It is of course possible that human intelligence relies upon
electromagnetic-field sensing that goes beyond the traditional five
senses.
OR, it might all be a quantum multicosmic phenomenon that is best
explained with a dose of Evenedrician Datonomy
|-)
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The problem is that **there is no way for science to ever establish
the existence of a nonalgorithmic process**, because science deals
only with finite sets of finite-precision measurements.
I suppose it would be more accurate to state that
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:10 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
and...@ceruleansystems.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The problem is that **there is no way for science to ever establish the
existence of a nonalgorithmic process**, because science deals only with
finite sets
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
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 can do. I'm almost
tempted to class such
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
The problem is that **there is no way for science to ever establish
the existence of a nonalgorithmic process**, because science deals
only with finite sets of finite-precision measurements.
I suppose it would be
On Dec 19, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Yes, you can work around it by assuming Occam's Razor as a sort of
primal religious principle ... but then you're making a big
assumption pulled out of the glorious subjective nothing ... which
is fine, but you should acknowledge that's
Cognitive computing: Building a machine that can learn from experience
http://www.physorg.com/news148754667.html
===[ Rafael C.P. ]===
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
Rafael C.P. wrote:
Cognitive computing: Building a machine that can learn from experience
http://www.physorg.com/news148754667.html
Neuroscience vaporware.
Richard Loosemore
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
Richard,
On 12/18/08, Richard Loosemore r...@lightlink.com wrote:
Rafael C.P. wrote:
Cognitive computing: Building a machine that can learn from experience
http://www.physorg.com/news148754667.html
Neuroscience vaporware.
It isn't neuroscience yet, because they haven't done any science
Steve Richfield wrote:
Richard,
On 12/18/08, *Richard Loosemore* r...@lightlink.com
mailto:r...@lightlink.com wrote:
Rafael C.P. wrote:
Cognitive computing: Building a machine that can learn from
experience
http://www.physorg.com/news148754667.html
DARPA buys G.Tononi for 4.9 $Million! For what amounts to little more
than vague hopes that any of us here could have dreamed up. Here I am, up to
my armpits in an actual working proposition with a real science basis...
scrounging for pennies. hmmm...maybe if I sidle up and adopt an aging
YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
DARPA buys G.Tononi for 4.9 $Million! For what amounts to little more
than vague hopes that any of us here could have dreamed up. Here I am, up to
my armpits in an actual working proposition with a real science basis...
scrounging for pennies. hmmm...maybe if I
On Dec 18, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I think I covered this in a post a while back but FYI... I am a
little 'left-field' in the AGI circuit in that my approach involves
literal replication of the electromagnetic field structure of brain
material. This is in contrast to a
27 matches
Mail list logo
