Arthur,
The section from The Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex, FAQ, 2.3 What do
researchers in academia think of Murray’s work?, really puts you into a
whole other category in my view. The rest of us can only dream of such
dismissals from experts who haven't achieved anything more than the rest
of us.
Sure. Thanks Arthur.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:42 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Arthur,
Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get
bored of maintaining or
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yeah. I forgot about some of Arthur's claims about Mentiflex which
seemed a bit exaggerated. Oh well.
Jim Bromer
World War II was a bit of a tussle, too.
-Chris
---
agi
David Jones wrote:
Arthur,
Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
things. I am sometimes not good at maintaining the website because I get
bored of maintaining or updating it very quickly :)
Dave
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org
Don't fret; your main site's got good uptime.
http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html
-Chris
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, A. T. Murray menti...@scn.org wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Arthur,
Thanks. I appreciate that. I would be happy to aggregate some of those
things. I am
lol. thanks Jim :)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say that I am proud of David Jone's efforts. He has really
matured during these last few months. I'm kidding but I really do respect
the fact that he is actively experimenting. I want to
The Web site of David Jones at
http://practicalai.org
is quite impressive to me
as a kindred spirit building AGI.
(Just today I have been coding MindForth AGI :-)
For his Practical AI Challenge or similar
ventures, I would hope that David Jones is
open to the idea of aggregating or archiving
I have to say that I am proud of David Jone's efforts. He has really
matured during these last few months. I'm kidding but I really do respect
the fact that he is actively experimenting. I want to get back to work on
my artificial imagination and image analysis programs - if I can ever figure
extremely kind - you do have a chance of winning the lottery.
--
From: Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.com
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:17 AM
To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 19
a chance of winning the lottery.
--
From: Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.com
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:17 AM
To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 19:38 -0400, Ben Goertzel
. Subject yourself to reality - it'll feel better every
which way.
From: David Jones
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:31 AM
To: agi
Subject: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning:
We prefer the hypothesis or explanation
Hi,
I certainly agree with this method, but of course it's not original at all,
it's pretty much the basis of algorithmic learning theory, right?
Hutter's AIXI for instance works [very roughly speaking] by choosing the
most compact program that, based on historical data, would have yielded
Thanks Ben,
Right, explanatory reasoning not new at all (also called abduction and
inference to the best explanation). But, what seems to be elusive is a
precise and algorithm method for implementing explanatory reasoning and
solving real problems, such as sensory perception. This is what I'm
For visual perception, there are many reasons to think that a hierarchical
architecture can be effective... this is one of the things you may find in
dealing with real visual data but not with these toy examples...
E.g. in a spatiotemporal predictive hierarchy, the idea would be to create a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning:*Here is
a simplified version of how we solve case study 1:
*The important hypotheses to consider are:
1) the square from frame 1 of the video that has a
have the courage to face
this?
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:21 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones davidher...@gmail.com wrote:
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning:Here is a
simplified
To put it more succinctly, Dave Ben Hutter are doing the wrong subject
- narrow AI. Looking for the one right prediction/ explanation is narrow
AI. Being able to generate more and more possible explanations, wh. could
all be valid, is AGI. The former is rational, uniform thinking. The
lol.
Mike,
What I was trying to express by the word *expect* is NOT predict [some exact
outcome]. Expect means that the algorithm has a way of comparing
observations to what the algorithm considers to be consistent with an
explanation. This is something I struggled to solve for a long time
The fact that you are using experiment and the fact that you recognized that
AGI needs to provide both explanation and expectations (differentiated from
the false precision of 'prediction') shows that you have a grasp of some of
the philosophical problems, but the fact that you would rely on a
Jim,
I am using over simplification to identify the core problems involved. As
you can see, the over simplification is revealing how to resolve certain
types of dilemmas and uncertainty. That is exactly why I did this. If you
can't solve a simple environment, you certainly can't solve the full
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Jim :This illustrates one of the things wrong with the
dreary instantiations of the prevailing mind set of a group. It is only a
matter of time until you discover (through experiment) how absurd it is to
celebrate
Progress on the Core of AGI
Jim,
Two things.
1) If the method I have suggested works for the most simple case, it is quite
straight forward to add complexity and then ask, how do I solve it now. If you
can't solve that case, there is no way in hell you will solve the full AGI
problem
of
geometrical figures and mechanical motion (and boxes moving across a screen)
were only invented very recently.
*From:* David Jones davidher...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, June 27, 2010 5:57 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Jim,
Two things.
1
I am working on logical satisfiability again. If what I am working on right
now works, it will become a pivotal moment in AGI, and what's more, the
method that I am developing will (probably) become a core method for AGI.
However, if the idea I am working on does not -itself- lead to a major
: Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:33 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
That's a rather bizarre suggestion Mike ... I'm quite sure a simple narrow AI
system could be constructed to beat humans at Pong ;p ... without teaching us
much of anything about intelligence...
Very likely
as fairly easy narrow AI problems.
*From:* Ben Goertzel b...@goertzel.org
*Sent:* Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:33 PM
*To:* agi agi@v2.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
That's a rather bizarre suggestion Mike ... I'm quite sure a simple narrow
AI system could
, 2010 8:53 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Ben: I'm quite sure a simple narrow AI system could be constructed to beat
humans at Pong ;p
Mike: Well, Ben, I'm glad you're quite sure because you haven't given a
single reason why.
Although Ben would have to give us
.listbox.com
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Ben: I'm quite sure a simple narrow AI system could be constructed to beat
humans at Pong ;p
Mike: Well, Ben, I'm glad you're quite sure because you haven't given a
single reason why.
Although Ben would have to give us an actual
Mike,
you are mixing multiple issues. Just like my analogy of the rubix cube, full
AGI problems involve many problems at the same time. The problem I wrote
this email about was not about how to solve them all at the same time. It
was about how to solve one of those problems. After solving the
in particular, rather than all whales in general.
From: Ben Goertzel
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 12:03 AM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Huge Progress on the Core
A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning: *
We prefer the hypothesis or explanation that ***expects* more observations.
If both explanations expect the same observations, then the simpler of the
two is preferred (because the unnecessary terms of the more complicated
31 matches
Mail list logo
