On 11 Feb 2012, at 21:32, acw wrote:
On 2/10/2012 13:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK]
I do not see how this deals effectively with the concurrency
problem!
:-( Using the Platonia idea is a cheat as it is explicitly
unphysical.
But physics by itself does
On 12 Feb 2012, at 06:50, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
I don't really understand this thread - magical thinking? The
neural network between our ears is who / what we are, and
everything that we will experience.
If that was the case, we would not survive with an artificial brain.
Comp would
On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 11, 3:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Feb 2012, at 15:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Dennett's Comp:
Human 1p = 3p(3p(3p)) -
What do you mean precisely by np(np) n = 1 or 3. ?
I'm using 1p or 3p as names only, first
On Feb 11, 8:33 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining
why the popular ideas and
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run
the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that.
It's not because you can program's them to
On Feb 12, 7:14 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
And not of you don't.. We have made a little progress here. You think
computers are dumb because you think in terms of the hardware,
and not in terms of the software, despite the fact that the latter can
be of any degree of complexity.
On 2/11/2012 5:15 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/11/2012 05:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a
sentence
has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you
know it or not.
Sure, but it is not just you
On 2/11/2012 5:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 2/11/2012 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2012, at 07:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
Thank you for
Hi Folks,
I would like to bring the following to your attention. I think that
we do need to revisit this problem.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
The Anthropic Trilemma
http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
21Eliezer_Yudkowsky
On Feb 12, 6:54 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Dennett's Comp:
Human 1p = 3p(3p(3p)) -
What do you mean precisely by np(np) n = 1 or 3. ?
I'm using 1p or 3p as names only, first person direct
phenomenology or
third person
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people
are machines.
I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (too
gradually for my taste) gotten away from the idea that
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Not only that, a computer implementing AI would be able to learn from it's
discussion. Even if it started with an astronomically large look-up table,
the look-up table would grow.
That is very true!
John K Clark
--
On 11 Feb 2012, at 23:09, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
The diagram is strictly 3p. It would be helpful if you wrote up
an informal article on the octolism. It is very difficult to
comprehend it from just
On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people
are machines.
I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually
On 2/12/2012 7:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people
are machines.
I certainly hope so. In the
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/11/2012 5:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/11/2012 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2012, at 07:32, Stephen P.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Feb 2012, at 23:09, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
The diagram is strictly 3p. It would be helpful if you wrote up an
informal
Stephen,
In my mind, autopoeitic cognitive systems (advanced enough to use
symbols to do cognition) do not have a symbol grounding problem. In
these organizationally-closed systems, symbols can only be grounded in
internal patterns - patterns that emerge from the way the world
perturbs its
18 matches
Mail list logo
