2008/12/11 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
*Ben Goertzel is a continuously changing reality. At 10.05 pm he will be
different from 10.00pm, and so on. He is in fact many individuals.
Based on some of the stuff which I've been doing with SLAM algorithms
I'd agree with this sort of
Steve,
I thought someone would come up with the kind of objection you have put
forward. Your objection is misplaced. ( And here we have an example of what I
meant by knowing [metacognitively about] imaginative intelligence -
understanding metacognitively how imagination works).
Consider what
An article related to how changes in the epigenonme could affect learning
and memory (the subject which started this thread a week ago)
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21801/
---
agi
Archives:
To save you the trouble the most relevant language from the below cited
article is
While scientists don't yet know exactly how epigenetic regulation affects
memory, the theory is that certain triggers, such as exercise, visual
stimulation, or drugs, unwind DNA, allowing expression of genes
After talking to an old professor of mine, it bears mentioning that epigenetic
mechanisms such as methylation and histone remodeling are not the only means of
altering transcription. A long established mechanism involves phosphorylation
of transcription factors in the neuron (phosphorylation
It's all a big vindication for genetic memory, that's for certain. I
was comfortable with the notion of certain templates, archetypes,
being handed down as aspects of brain design via natural selection,
but this really clears the way for organisms' life experiences to
simply be copied in some form
Eric Burton wrote:
It's all a big vindication for genetic memory, that's for certain. I
was comfortable with the notion of certain templates, archetypes,
being handed down as aspects of brain design via natural selection,
but this really clears the way for organisms' life experiences to
simply
2008/12/11 Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk:
But an image/movie can only be compared with a verbal statement in terms of
what it *actually shows* - the *surface, visible action.* His actual,
observable dialogue and gestures and expressions - that and only that is
what a movie records
You can see though how genetic memory encoding opens the door to
acquired phenotype changes over an organism's life, though, and those
could become communicable. I think Lysenko was onto something like
this. Let us hope all those Soviet farmers wouldn't have just starved!
;3
On 12/11/08, Matt
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Eric Burton brila...@gmail.com wrote:
You can see though how genetic memory encoding opens the door to
acquired phenotype changes over an organism's life, though, and those
could become communicable. I think Lysenko was onto something like
this. Let us hope all those
Mike and Bob,
There seems to be a massive confusion between data and information here. To
illustrate:
1. A movie is just data until it is analyzed to extract some (if any) *
useful* information.
2. A verbal description is typically somewhere in between, as it contains
bits of ???, some of which
Steve wrote:
Bit#3: Did Ben realize that the prospective emergence of array processors
(e.g. as I have been promoting) would obsolete much of his present
work, because its structure isn't vectorizable, so he is in effect betting
on continued stagnation in processor architecture, and may in
Bob,
I think you've been blinded by science here :). You don't actually see -
and science hasn't, in all its history, seen - photons hitting receptors.
What you're talking about there is very sophisticated, and not at all
immediately-obvious/evident inferences made from scientific
2008/12/11 Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk:
There is no problem though seeing the entities and movements in a movie -
Ben, say, raising his hand, or shaking Steve's hand, or laughing or making
some other facial expression. Sure, we can argue and/or be confused about
the significance and
Bob:That video is a higher bandwidth communication channel than language
is undoubtedly true.
Bob,
Aaargh! You're repeating the primary fallacy of seemingly everyone here -
i.e. all images and symbols are just different forms of data -
bandwidth.
(I should respond at length but I can't
I don't think that each inheritor receives a full set of the
original's memories. But there may have *evolved* in spite of the
obvious barriers, a means of transferring primary or significant
experience from one organism to another in genetic form... we can
imagine such a thing given this news!
Evolution is not magic. You haven't addressed the substance of Matt's questions
at all. What you're suggesting is magical unless you can talk about specific
mechanisms, as Richard did last week. Richard's idea - though it is extremely
unlikely and lacks empirical evidence to support it - is
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Eric Burton brila...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that each inheritor receives a full set of the
original's memories. But there may have *evolved* in spite of the
obvious barriers, a means of transferring primary or significant
experience from one organism to another
I don't know how you derived the value 10^4, Matt, but that seems
reasonable to me. Terren, let me go back to the article and try to
understand what exactly it says is happening. Certainly that's my
editorial's crux
On 12/11/08, Matt Mahoney matmaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Eric
Ok.
We think we're seeing short-term memories forming in the hippocampus and
slowly turning into
long-term memories in the cortex, says Miller, who presented the results last
week at the Society
for Neuroscience meeting in Washington DC.
It certainly sounds like the genetic changes are limited
That made almost no sense to me. I'm not trying to be rude here, but that
sounded like the ramblings of one who doesn't have the necessary grasp of the
key ideas required to speculate intelligently about these things. The fact that
you once again managed to mention psilocybin does nothing to
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Eric Burton brila...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how you derived the value 10^4, Matt, but that seems
reasonable to me. Terren, let me go back to the article and try to
understand what exactly it says is happening. Certainly that's my
editorial's crux
A simulation of
I've actually got a pretty solid grasp on the underpinnings of this
stuff, Terren. I was agreeing with you: memory formation via gene
modification may be only endemic. Probably not all or the reproductive
cells have their nuclei written to by every, or any, given stimulus.
Yet, there are arguments
Ben,
Before I comment on your reply, note that my former posting was about my
PERCEPTION rather than the REALITY of your understanding, with the
difference being taken up in the answer being less than 1.00 bit of
information.
Anyway, that said, on with a VERY interesting (to me) subject.
On
Hi,
There isn't much that an MIMD machine can do better than a similar-sized
SIMD machine.
Hey, that's just not true.
There are loads of math theorems disproving this assertion...
OO and generic design patterns do buy you *something* ...
OO is often impossible to vectorize.
The point
fMRI scanner reconstructing images seen by subjects, etc
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/science/20081211TDY01306.htm
copied below - Anyone read the actual article in Neuron?
//
Images read from human brain
The Yomiuri Shimbun
Ben,
On 12/11/08, Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org wrote:
There isn't much that an MIMD machine can do better than a similar-sized
SIMD machine.
Hey, that's just not true.
There are loads of math theorems disproving this assertion...
Oops, I left out the presumed adjective real-world. Of
27 matches
Mail list logo
