I think that our propensity for music is pretty damn simple: it's a
side-effect of the general skill-learning machinery that makes us memetic
substrates. Tunes are trajectories in n-space as are the series of motor
signals involved in walking, throwing, hitting, cracking nuts, chipping
stones,
On 02/12/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that our propensity for music is pretty damn simple: it's a
side-effect of the general skill-learning machinery that makes us memetic
substrates. Tunes are trajectories in n-space as are the series of motor
signals involved in
On 12/1/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Hank Conn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/1/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goals of humanity, like all other species, was determined by
evolution.
It is to propagate the species.
That's not the goal of humanity.
Yes, indeed, the facility with which we can learn languages expressed by hand
motions (and the fact that control of language and fine motor control for the
hands is intimately bound up in the brain) is one of the reasons that I think
that language and imitating manual skills are strongly
Yes, Mithen's theory has more complexity than I described. I was not
trying to fully summarize his theory; perhaps I will later, but I
don't have time at the moment...
Just as the blind may use the spatial-conceptualization abilities of
the visual cortex to aid in their thinking -- even if they
A nice story but it proves absolutely nothing . . . . .
You developed a pattern-matcher. The pattern matcher worked (and I would
dispute that it worked better than it had a right to). Clearly, you do
not understand how it worked. So what does that prove?
Your contention (or, at least, the
Thank you for cross-posting this. Could you please give us more information
on your book?
I must also say that I appreciate the common-sense wisdom and repeated bon
mots that the sky is falling crowd seem to lack.
- Original Message -
From: J. Storrs Hall, PhD. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/1/06, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The questions you asked above are predicated on a goal stack approach.
You are repeating the same mistakes that I already dealt with.
Philip Goetz snidely responded
Some people would call it repeating the same mistakes I already dealt
On 12/2/06, Mark Waser wrote:
My contention is that the pattern that it found was simply not translated
into terms you could understand and/or explained.
Further, and more importantly, the pattern matcher *doesn't* understand it's
results either and certainly could build upon them -- thus, it
On 12/2/06, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Goetz snidely responded
Some people would call it repeating the same mistakes I already dealt
with.
Some people would call it continuing to disagree. :)
Richard's point was that the poster was simply repeating previous points
Hi Bill,
An excellent reply to my post since it gives me good points to directly
respond to . . . .
I am not making the two assumptions that you list in the absolute sense
although I am making them in the practical sense (which turns out to be a
very important difference). Let me
On Saturday 02 December 2006 13:57, Mark Waser wrote:
Thank you for cross-posting this. Could you please give us more
information on your book?
I must also say that I appreciate the common-sense wisdom and repeated bon
mots that the sky is falling crowd seem to lack.
- Original Message
On 12/2/06, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the big puzzles in AI that has bothered me since the 70s is what
happened to cybernetics and why AI and cybernetics weren't consilient. In
the process of research I found the answer, and it's a weird one.
Josh,
Can you give us
--- Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that our propensity for music is pretty damn simple: it's a
side-effect of the general skill-learning machinery that makes us memetic
substrates. Tunes are trajectories in n-space as are the series of motor
signals involved in walking,
--- Hank Conn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/1/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Hank Conn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/1/06, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose the alternative is to not scan brains, but then you still
have
death, disease and
Hint, large economy size: read Siegelman Conway, Dark Hero of the
Information Age: In Search Of Norbert Wiener--Father of Cybernetics, (New
York: Basic Books, 2004). The story is outre enough I felt compelled to ask
Oliver Selfridge, the only major figure in both cybernetics and AI, about it
He's arguing with the phrase It is programmed only through evolution.
If I'm wrong and he is not, I certainly am.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Motivational Systems of an AI [WAS
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A nice story but it proves absolutely nothing . . . . .
I know a little about network intrusion anomaly detection (it was my
dissertation topic), and yes it is an important lessson.
Network traffic containing attacks has a higher algorithmic complexity
Philip Goetz wrote:
On 12/1/06, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The questions you asked above are predicated on a goal stack approach.
You are repeating the same mistakes that I already dealt with.
Some people would call it repeating the same mistakes I already dealt
with.
Some
19 matches
Mail list logo
