On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have to be exposed directly to all the actual novelty in the natural
world, not the novelty
recognised by a model of what novelty is. Consciousness (P-consciousness and
specifically and importantly visual
Hi Trent,
You guys are forcing me to voice all sort of things in odd ways.
It's a hoot...but I'm running out of hours!!!
Trent Waddington wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have to be exposed directly to all the actual novelty in the natural
Oops I forgot...
Ben Goertzel wrote:
About self: you don't like Metzinger's neurophilosophy I presume?
(Being No One is a masterwork in my view)
I got the book out and started to read it. But I found it incredibly
dense and practically useless. It told me nothing. I came out the other
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:18 PM, David Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So you'll just have to wait. Sorry. I also have patent/IP issues.
Exactly what qualia am I expected to feel when you say the words
'Intellectual
Anyway I think Colin has now clarified his position.
To me, the key point is that he does not believe human-scientist-level
intelligence can be achieved via any digital computer plus robot body
apparatus.
This is a scientifically reasonable hypothesis, which has been made by Roger
Penrose and
Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion on
this list.
However, I don't think discussions of the form I have all the answers, but
they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha are particularly useful.
So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this
Ben: I defy you to give me any neuroscience or cog sci result that cannot be
clearly explained using computable physics.
Ben,
As discussed before, no current computational approach can replicate the
brain's ability to produce a memory in what we can be v. confident are only a
few
Mike:
Ben: I defy you to give me any neuroscience or cog sci result that cannot be
clearly explained using computable physics.
Ben, As discussed before, no current computational approach can replicate
the brain's ability to produce a memory in what we can be v. confident are
only a few
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion on
this list.
However, I don't think discussions of the form I have all the answers, but
they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha are
Ben: I don't have time to summarize all that stuff I already wrote in emails
either ;-p
Ben,
I asked you to at least *label* what your explanation of scientific
creativity is.. Just a label, Ben. Books that are properly organized and
constructed (and sell), usually do have clearly labelled
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Eric Burton wrote:
My mistake I guess. I'm going to try harder to understand what you're
saying from now on.
Colin's profile on Nature says:
I am a mature age PhD student with the sole intent of getting a novel
chip technology and derivative products into
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
So you'll just have to wait. Sorry. I also have patent/IP issues.
Exactly what qualia am I expected to feel when you say the words
'Intellectual Property'? (that's a rhetorical question, just in case there
was any doubt!)
Colin appears to have clarified his position. It seems to be that
computers cannot be intelligent, and we need some other kind of device for
AGI, which he is working on.
That is a perfectly possible assertion and approach. Unfortunately, what
Ben try to say as A is kind of an assumption for the
I suppose it's a bit ambiguous. There's computer modelling of mind, and then
there's the implementation of an actual mind using actual computation, then
there's the implementation of a brain using computation, in which a mind may
be said to be operating. All sorts of misdirection.
I think IBM is
Books that present theories out of the mainstream, don't always fit into the
recognized systems of labels very comfortably ;-)
Such books may indeed not sell well, but short-term profitability is not a
good way of judging the soundness of a set of ideas.
I'll try my hand at a summary phrase you
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Colin Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am aware of 'blue brain'. It, and the distributed processor in the other
link are still COMP and therefore subject to all the arguments I have been
making, and therefore not on the path to real AGI. It's interesting
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, from what I've seen, it's not a position that I think
I've ever seen defended in any convincing way, and I kind of suspect it
can't be. Indeed, it sets off my crank-alert.
Yes, thank you.
If I can summarize Colin's opinion,
Trent : If you disagree with my paraphrasing of your opinion Colin, please
feel free to rebut it *in plain english* so we can better figure out
what the hell you're on about.
Well, I agree that Colin hasn't made clear what he stands for
[neo-]computationally. But perhaps he is doing us a
but I don't want to discuss the details about the
algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not,
Hearing this makes my teeth gnash. GO AND IMPLEMENT THEM. THEN TELL US
On 10/15/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Hart wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM,
Hi,
My main impression of the AGI-08 forum was one of over-dominance by
singularity-obsessed and COMP thinking, which must have freaked me out a
bit.
This again is completely off-base ;-)
COMP, yes ... Singularity, no. The Singularity was not a theme of AGI-08
and the vast majority of
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 12:43 AM
Hi Matt,
... The Gamez paper situation is now...erm...resolved. You are right:
the paper doesn't argue that solving consciousness is necessary for
AGI. What has
Colin:
others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual hardware
neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K. 'Thermodynamically
equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion channels', Neural
Computation vol. 19, no. 2, 2007. 327-350.) ...and others ... then things
Again, when you say that these neuroscience theories have squashed the
computational theories of mind, it is not clear to me what you mean by the
computational theories of mind. Do you have a more precise definition of
what you mean?
ben g
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason for not connecting consciousness with AGI is a
situation where one can see no mechanism or role for it. That inability
is no proof there is noneand I have both to the point of having a
patent in progress. Yes, I
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Hi,
My main impression of the AGI-08 forum was one of over-dominance
by singularity-obsessed and COMP thinking, which must have
freaked me out a bit.
This again is completely off-base ;-)
I also found my feeling about -08 as slightly coloured by first
OK, but you have not yet explained what your theory of consciousness is, nor
what the physical mechanism nor role for consciousness that you propose is
... you've just alluded obscurely to these things. So it's hard to react
except with raised eyebrows and skepticism!!
ben g
On Tue, Oct 14,
I am reminded of this:
http://www.serve.com/bonzai/monty/classics/MissAnneElk
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:14:39 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration
OK, but you have not yet explained what your theory of consciousness is, nor
what
Ben Goertzel wrote:
OK, but you have not yet explained what your theory of consciousness
is, nor what the physical mechanism nor role for consciousness that
you propose is ... you've just alluded obscurely to these things. So
it's hard to react except with raised eyebrows and skepticism!!
communities you mention? I've looked briefly but in vain ...
would appreciate any helpful pointers.
Thanks,
Terren
--- On *Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/*
wrote:
From: Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration
To: agi@v2
doobelow.
Mike Tintner wrote:
Colin:
others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual
hardware neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K.
'Thermodynamically equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion
channels', /Neural Computation/ vol. 19, no.
About self: you don't like Metzinger's neurophilosophy I presume? (Being No
One is a masterwork in my view)
I agree that integrative biology is the way to go for understanding brain
function ... and I was talking to Walter Freeman about his work in the early
90's when we both showed up at the
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Again, when you say that these neuroscience theories have squashed
the computational theories of mind, it is not clear to me what you
mean by the computational theories of mind. Do you have a more
precise definition of what you mean?
I suppose it's a bit ambiguous.
Sure, I know Pylyshyn's work ... and I know very few contemporary AI
scientists who adopt a strong symbol-manipulation-focused view of cognition
like Fodor, Pylyshyn and so forth. That perspective is rather dated by
now...
But when you say
Where computation is meant in the sense of abstract
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Sure, I know Pylyshyn's work ... and I know very few contemporary AI
scientists who adopt a strong symbol-manipulation-focused view of
cognition like Fodor, Pylyshyn and so forth. That perspective is
rather dated by now...
But when you say
Where computation is meant
I still don't really get it, sorry... ;-(
Are you saying
A) that a conscious, human-level AI **can** be implemented on an ordinary
Turing machine, hooked up to a robot body
or
B) A is false
???
If you could clarify this point, I might have an easier time interpreting
your other thoughts?
I
Ben Goertzel wrote:
About self: you don't like Metzinger's neurophilosophy I presume?
(Being No One is a masterwork in my view)
I agree that integrative biology is the way to go for understanding
brain function ... and I was talking to Walter Freeman about his work
in the early 90's when
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I still don't really get it, sorry... ;-(
Are you saying
A) that a conscious, human-level AI **can** be implemented on an
ordinary Turing machine, hooked up to a robot body
or
B) A is false
B)
Yeah that about does it.
Specifically: It will never produce an
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason for not connecting consciousness with AGI is a
situation where one can see no mechanism or role for it. That inability
is no proof there is noneand I have both to the point of having a
I agree it is far nicer when advocates of theories are willing to gracefully
entertain constructive criticisms of their theories.
However, historically, I'm not sure it's true that this sort of grace on the
part of a theorist is well-correlated with the ultimate success of that
theorist's
Well, how about privately sending me a few of those names. I know
that Wittgenstein was pretty obnoxious after WW1, but I don't think
that he made much substantial progress during that time. I think his
most important work was written during the war, in the trenches I
think. (I may be mistaken.)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree it is far nicer when advocates of theories are willing to gracefully
entertain constructive criticisms of their theories.
However, historically, I'm not sure it's true that this sort of grace on the
part of a
Jim,
I really don't have time for a long debate on the historical psychology of
scientists...
To give some random examples though: Newton, Leibniz and Gauss were
certainly obnoxious, egomaniacal pains in the ass though ... Edward Teller
... Goethe, whose stubbornness was largely on-the-mark with
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Jim,
I really don't have time for a long debate on the historical
psychology of scientists...
To give some random examples though: Newton, Leibniz and Gauss were
certainly obnoxious, egomaniacal pains in the ass though ... Edward
Teller ... Goethe, whose stubbornness
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Galileo, Bruno of Nolan, etc.
OTOH, Paracelsus was quite personable. So was, reputedly, Pythagoras. (No
good evidence on Pythagoras, though. Only stories from supporters.) (Also,
consider that the Pythagoreans,
Jim Bromer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Charles Hixson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Galileo, Bruno of Nolan, etc.
OTOH, Paracelsus was quite personable. So was, reputedly, Pythagoras. (No
good evidence on Pythagoras, though. Only stories from supporters.) (Also,
consider that
Colin,
Yes you and Rescher are going in a good direction, but you can make it all
simpler still, by being more specific..
We can take it for granted that we're talking here mainly about whether
*incomplete* creative works should be criticised.
If we're talking about scientific theories, then
Mike Tintner wrote:
Colin,
Yes you and Rescher are going in a good direction, but you can make it
all simpler still, by being more specific..
We can take it for granted that we're talking here mainly about
whether *incomplete* creative works should be criticised.
If we're talking about
But when you see someone, theorist or critic, who almost never
demonstrates any genuine capacity for reexamining his own theories or
criticisms from any critical vantage point what so ever, then it's a
strong negative indicator.
Jim Bromer
I would be hesitant to draw strong conclusions
--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the wider world of science it is the current state of play that the
theoretical basis for real AGI is an open and multi-disciplinary
question. A forum that purports to be invested in achievement of real
AGI as a target, one would
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I have swung between extremes of excessive self-doubt
and excessive self-confidence many times ... but one way or another,
I've kept pushing ahead hard with the work, regardless of the emotional
fluctuations my
Hi Matt,
... The Gamez paper situation is now...erm...resolved. You are right:
the paper doesn't argue that solving consciousness is necessary for AGI.
What has happened recently is a subtle shift - those involved simple
fail to make claims about the consciousness or otherwise of the
Colin wrote:
The only working, known model of general intelligence is the human. If we
base AGI on anything that fails to account scientifically and completely for
*all* aspects of human cognition, including consciousness, then we open
ourselves to critical inferiority... and the rest of
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Colin wrote:
The only working, known model of general intelligence is the
human. If we base AGI on anything that fails to account
scientifically and completely for /all/ aspects of human
cognition, including consciousness, then we open ourselves to
53 matches
Mail list logo
