PS-- I am not denying that statistics is applied probability theory. :) When
I say they are different, what I mean is that saying I'm going to use
probability theory and I'm going to use statistics tend to indicate very
different approaches. Probability is a set of axioms, whereas statistics is
a
Well, if you want a simple but complete operator set, you can go with
-- Schonfinkel combinator plus two parentheses
or
-- S and K combinator plus two parentheses
and I suppose you could add
-- input
-- output
-- forget
statements to this, but I'm not sure what this gets you...
Actually,
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
[The]complaint that probability theory doesn't try to figure out why it was
wrong in the 30% (or whatever) it misses is a common objection. Probability
theory glosses over important detail, it encourages lazy thinking, etc.
Abram,
Thanks for the clarification Abram. I don't have a single way to deal with
uncertainty. I try not to decide on a method ahead of time because what I
really want to do is analyze the problems and find a solution. But, at the
same time. I have looked at the probabilistic approaches and they
You seem to be reaching for something important here, but it isn't at all clear
what you mean.
I would say that any creative activity (incl. pure problemsolving) begins from
a *conceptual paradigm* - a v. rough outline - of the form of that activity and
the form of its end-product or
Just a quick note on what is actually a massive subject the heart of AGI. I
imagine - but do comment - that most of you think when I say that concepts are
rough flexible outlines/schemas, wtf is this weird guy on about ? what's that
got to do with serious AI? nonsense
Well, here are some
Ah suddenly I realise why flexible/fluid outlines for concepts are an obvious
necessity.
The reason they seem like a strange rather than obvious idea is that we - and
especially AI-ers - tend to think of concepts in terms of subjects that we are
reading about - that we are viewing as
To summarise: you need a fluid outline for a concept in order to guide a vastly
diverse spectrum of lines of action - and lines/delineations of objects. (You
can almost but not quite think of this geometrically).
---
agi
Archives:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
And programs as we know them, don't and can't handle *concepts* - despite
the misnomers of conceptual graphs/spaces etc wh are not concepts at all.
They can't for example handle writing or shopping because these
I meant,
I think that we both agree that creativity and imagination are absolutely
necessary aspects of intelligence.
of course!
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner
tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
And
The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts - if
you think they do, you must give examples.
The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is
a) concepts encase a more or less *infinite diversity of forms* (even if only
applying at first to a species of object) -
Mike, you are so full of it. There is a big difference between *can* and
*don't*. You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say that
can't.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't*
Mike,
see below.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts -
if you think they do, you must give examples.
The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is
a) concepts encase a
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts -
if you think they do, you must give examples.
The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is
a) concepts encase a more or less
Thanks Abram, I'll read up on it when I get a chance.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote:
David,
Yes, this makes sense to me.
To go back to your original query, I still think you will find a rich
community relevant to your work if you look into the
I've been trying to figure out how to score hypotheses. Do you guys have any
constructive ideas about how to define the way you score hypotheses like
these a little better? I'll define the problem below in detail. I know Abram
mentioned MDL, which I'm about to look into. Does that even apply to
Dave:You have no proof that programs can't handle anything you say that can't
Sure I do.
**There is no such thing as a formula (or program as we currently understand
it) that can or is meant to handle UNSPECIFIED, (ESP NEW, UNKNOWN) KINDS OF
ACTIONS AND OBJECTS**
Every program is
I'm not even going to read your whole email.
I'll give you a great example of a formula handling unknown objects. The
goal of the formula is to scan any unknown object and produce a 3D model of
it using laser scanning. The objects are unknown, but that doesn't mean you
can't handle unknown
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 07:00 -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Well, if you want a simple but complete operator set, you can go with
-- Schonfinkel combinator plus two parentheses
I'll check this out soon.
or
-- S and K combinator plus two parentheses
and I suppose you could add
-- input
Dave: The goal of the formula is to scan any unknown object
How does the program define and therefore recognize object ?
(And why then are you dealing with just squares if it can deal with this
apparently vast and unlimited range of objects? )
If you go into detail, you'll find no program
My opinion is that this is as good a place to start as any. At least you
are dealing with an actual problem, your trying different stuff out, and you
seem like you are willing to actually try it out.
The problem is that the scoring is based on a superficial model of
conceptual integration, where,
Michael: We can't do operations that
require 1,000,000 loop iterations. I wish someone would give me a PHD
for discovering this ;) It far better describes our differences than any
other theory.
Michael,
This isn't a competitive point - but I think I've made that point several
times (and so of
Brain loops:
Premise:
Biological brain code does not contain looping constructs, or the
ability to creating looping code, (due to the fact they are extremely
dangerous on unreliable hardware) except for 1 global loop that fires
about 200 times a second.
Hypothesis:
Brains cannot calculate
23 matches
Mail list logo
