On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
wrote:
> [Col] I’ve just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity
> Summit. What a ‘hoot’!
Really sorry I couldn't attend last weekend.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo
On Aug 23, 7:18 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 3:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 5:58 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >> On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> The basic difference is the ability to feel. Literally proving it
> >>> would require a brain impl
On Aug 23, 7:07 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> That it's possible? Or it's true?
Possibly true.
> > The fact that we are even having this discussion
> > should remind us that we do think there is a difference in the first
> > place. If a transistor could feel like a neuron can feel, then our
> > comput
[Col] I've just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity Summit.
What a 'hoot'!
At the conference I made a somewhat thwarted attempt to introduce physical
replication as a 'roadmap item' for AGI. I tried to show that AGI may be
reached by constructing the actual necessary physics of
On 8/23/2011 3:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:58 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The basic difference is the ability to feel. Literally proving it
would require a brain implant that remotes to the device, but I would
be very impressed if a
On 8/23/2011 3:33 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
I’ve just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity
Summit. What a ‘hoot’!
At the conference I made a somewhat thwarted attempt to introduce
physical replication as a ‘roadmap item’ for AGI. I tried to show that
AGI may be reache
On 8/23/2011 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:55 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
But the attempts at simulating birds failed completely. Airplanes
don't flap their wings. It took a much more basic understanding of
physics to grasp lift and
On Aug 23, 5:58 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > The basic difference is the ability to feel. Literally proving it
> > would require a brain implant that remotes to the device, but I would
> > be very impressed if a machine could convincingly answer personal
On Aug 23, 5:55 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > But the attempts at simulating birds failed completely. Airplanes
> > don't flap their wings. It took a much more basic understanding of
> > physics to grasp lift and drag, and it will take a much more elementa
On Aug 23, 5:53 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis wrote:
>
> *"So you agree that chemistry, which is all that the brain contains, is
> **no more magical than electronics?"*
> *
> *
> * - - - -O B J E C T I O N ! - - -*
> you added "which is all that the brain contains" smuggled into my position,
> w
On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The basic difference is the ability to feel. Literally proving it
would require a brain implant that remotes to the device, but I would
be very impressed if a machine could convincingly answer personal
questions like 'what do you want', or 'what's bothe
On 8/23/2011 2:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
But the attempts at simulating birds failed completely. Airplanes
don't flap their wings. It took a much more basic understanding of
physics to grasp lift and drag, and it will take a much more elemental
understanding of sensory input and output to repl
Stathis wrote:
*"So you agree that chemistry, which is all that the brain contains, is
**no more magical than electronics?"*
*
*
* - - - -O B J E C T I O N ! - - -*
you added "which is all that the brain contains" smuggled into my position,
which contains ...all we know today and include into the
On Aug 23, 9:21 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > But the problem I have with your idea of functional equivalence is
> > that you seem to treat it as an objective property when the reality is
> > that equivalence is completely contingent u
On 8/23/2011 4:20 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.4175v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
Attempts to think about the fate of the
photons in a collapse way seemed to suggest an effect going backwards in
time. Hence, the quantu
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> But the problem I have with your idea of functional equivalence is
> that you seem to treat it as an objective property when the reality is
> that equivalence is completely contingent upon what functions you are
> talking about. AC power wo
On 8/23/2011 7:20 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.4175v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
Hi,
From the paper:
"The most challenging idea in these experiments was Scully’s delayed-
choice: one has a pair of photons propagating in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.4175v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubsc
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:01 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis, allow me to barge in before Craig.
> I am glad you ask - the wrong question,
> I am not FOR the brain to think, it is a tool working in the process we did
> not so far deciphered. (That's exactly MY agnosticism). So we are talking
> a
19 matches
Mail list logo
