Subject: Re: [agi] New Paper - Temporal Singularity and the Fermi Paradox
Consciousness is what thinking feels like. Thinking and feeling are the result
of neurons firing. You love life and fear dying because it increases your
expected number of offspring. Why is this so mysterious?
-- Matt
-input was moved to bias the
result, and either report on it, or correct for it somehow, or just make a new
prediction?
Rob
From: Alan Grimes
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2018 6:03 PM
To: Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] New Paper - Temporal
just camel via AGI wrote:
>
> There are literally thousands of enlightened beings who will tell you
> the same thing using different (maybe less technical) words.
So what?
That just means that there are thousands of people with a neurological
abnormality that causes them to have a weak sense of
Alan, what is it about prednet that makes you think it’s conscious? What signs
is it showing? What’s it doing that makes you think this?
From what I see, it’s something that predicts the next video frame from the one
it has been presented. There’s an NN for representation but... that’s it.
questions.
Rob
From: just camel via AGI
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2018 4:10 PM
To: agi@agi.topicbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] New Paper - Temporal Singularity and the Fermi Paradox
In a nutshell: Consciousness came up with virtual 3D worlds as a way to enhance
And you are the only one to know the truth because...?
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:08 PM, just camel via AGI
wrote:
> So what really prevents us from discovering and interacting with "aliens"
> (or rather individuated forms of consciousness) isn't a lack of technology
> but a lack of mastery of
So what really prevents us from discovering and interacting with "aliens"
(or rather individuated forms of consciousness) isn't a lack of technology
but a lack of mastery of ourselves. The singular gateway to the entire
universe is "inside" of us and not external. Once you operate outside of
In a nutshell: Consciousness came up with virtual 3D worlds as a way to
enhance evolution of consciousness. Not-so-evolved consciousness follows
and identifies with avatars (human beings) in order to learn fundamental
lessons. (Just like children do when they play computer games.) By using
human
In a nutshell, are we saying that - first, there was consciousness?
From: just camel via AGI
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2018 2:48 PM
To: agi@agi.topicbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] New Paper - Temporal Singularity and the Fermi Paradox
See, even not so narrow minded
See, even not so narrow minded people from this very list understand that
consciousness is non-local and more fundamental than body and brain ...
http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html
Or Tom's book starting at page 113 ...
I stopped reading at "your consciousness is capable of communicating with
gazillions of other entities from outside this physical realm/plane
anytime."
G
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:51 AM, just camel via AGI
wrote:
>
> Fermi's Paradox ...
>
> Once upon a time, a 10 year old child became
Fermi's Paradox ...
Once upon a time, a 10 year old child became addicted to Super Mario Land.
He played so much that he forgot that he was a child among millions of
other children and kept asking himself "Where are all the other Marios?
There must be many more Marios? I will call this Fermi's
tside? That is the
> problem of scalable deabstraction, which is also 100% resident within the
> context of reducing NP to P. Is it heuristic enough to flow through
> boundaries as if they do not exist?
>
> Rob
> ________________
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent:
ithin the
> context of reducing NP to P. Is it heuristic enough to flow through
> boundaries as if they do not exist?
>
> Rob
>
> From: Jim Bromer via AGI
> Sent: Monday, 09 July 2018 10:54 AM
> To: AGI
> Subject: Re: [agi] New Paper
Effective world knowledge is based on practical advancements and most
practical advancements cannot be made in pure simulations (like those
that can overtake the advancements in the real world). Something like
a triple abstraction principle in mathematics including the
transformational algorithms
Where's the relation there?
Maybe our simulation is run on supercomputers of NP power.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 at 07:52, Shashank Yadav
wrote:
> If we are living in a simulation, then P equals NP, I think.
>
> -
> Shashank
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:53:31 +0530 *Mark Nuzz via AGI
> >* wrote
Some solutions, especially in game theory, REQUIRE the use of random number
generators. If they are simulatable, then they definitely are NOT random.
Steve
On Jun 26, 2018 1:47 AM, "Giacomo Spigler via AGI"
wrote:
>
> That's an interesting point, however:
>
> 1) it wouldn't be a closed
That's an interesting point, however:
1) it wouldn't be a closed environment, as progress could/would involve
alternation between work performed inside the simulation (progress given
the current state of the art and computational resources) and outside the
simulation (performing experiments
If we are living in a simulation, then P equals NP, I think. - Shashank On
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:53:31 +0530 Mark Nuzz via AGI wrote
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote: Recursive self improvement in a closed
environment is not possible because intelligence
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI
wrote:
> Recursive self improvement in a closed environment is not possible because
> intelligence depends on knowledge and computing power. These can only come
> from outside the simulation.
>
>
I generally agree with this. But let's go into
Recursive self improvement in a closed environment is not possible because
intelligence depends on knowledge and computing power. These can only come
from outside the simulation.
Nor can any simulation model the outside world exactly because Wolpert's
theorem prohibits two computers from mutually
21 matches
Mail list logo
