Hi Benjayk,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
We just cannot do artificial intelligence in a provable manner. We
need chance, or luck. Even if we get some intelligent machine, we
will
not know-it-for sure (perhaps just believe it correctly).
But this is a quite weak statement, isn't it? It just
On 15 Jun 2011, at 21:20, benjayk wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed)
universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps
even
maximally conscious.
What could maximally conscious mean? My intuition says
On 6/16/2011 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Concerning the learning competence of a machine, I measure it by the
classes of computable functions that the machine is able to identify
from finite samples of input-outputs. This leads to the computational
learning theory or inductive inference
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So we agree violently on this, to borrow an expression to Russell (I
think).
To be fair, Brent used this expression when agreeing with me on
something. But it is a good one!
Cheers
--
Hi Colin,
I'm having a read through your paper now, and have a few comments to
keep the juices of debate flowing on this list.
Firstly, I'd like to say well done - you have written a very clear
paper in what is a very murky subject.
I have two comments right now - but I haven't finished, so
On 14 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Terren Suydam wrote:
Thanks for the reply Bruno, comments below...
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
doesn't that imply the possibility
of an artificial intelligence?
In a weak sense of Artificial Intelligence, yes. In a
On 6/15/2011 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Doesn't this objection only apply to attempts to construct an AI with
human-equivalent intelligence? As a counter example I'm thinking here
of Ben Goertzel's OpenCog, an attempt at artificial general
intelligence (AGI), whose design is informed by a
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
We just cannot do artificial intelligence in a provable manner. We
need chance, or luck. Even if we get some intelligent machine, we will
not know-it-for sure (perhaps just believe it correctly).
But this is a quite weak statement, isn't it? It just
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed)
universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even
maximally conscious.
What could maximally conscious mean? My intuition says quite strongly that
consciousness is a
Dear Brent,
let me cut in with your last par:
*...There is a tendency to talk about human-equivalent intelligence or
human level intelligence as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved
to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining,
deduction,... There's no reason to
Bruno,
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed) universal
(and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even maximally
conscious.
This sounds like a comp variant of panpsychism (platopsychism?)... in
which consciousness is axiomatically proposed as a
Hi Terren,
On 13 Jun 2011, at 18:46, Terren Suydam wrote:
Long time lurker here, very intrigued by all the discussions here when
I have time for them!
Earlier in response to Colin Hales you wrote: Actually, comp prevents
artificial intelligence.
Can you elaborate on this? If we assume
Thanks for the reply Bruno, comments below...
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
doesn't that imply the possibility
of an artificial intelligence?
In a weak sense of Artificial Intelligence, yes. In a strong sense, no.
If you are duplicated at the right
The difference is in the
paper and should be non-existent of COMP is true.
Now I see your point. Thanks, I have missed it.
On 14.06.2011 01:41 Colin Hales said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
I expect you are not alone in struggling with the Natural Computation
(NC) vs Artificial Computation
Hi Bruno,
Long time lurker here, very intrigued by all the discussions here when
I have time for them!
Earlier in response to Colin Hales you wrote: Actually, comp prevents
artificial intelligence.
Can you elaborate on this? If we assume comp (I say yes to the
doctor) then I can be
Colin,
Thanks for the paper. I have just browsed it. Two small notes.
I like [Turing et al., 2008]. It seems that he has passed his test
successfully.
I find term Natural Computation (NC) a bit confusing. I guess that I
understand what you means but the term Computation sounds ambiguously,
Hi Evgenii,
I expect you are not alone in struggling with the Natural Computation
(NC) vs Artificial Computation (AC) idea. The difference is in the
paper and should be non-existent of COMP is true. The paper then shows a
place where it can't be true hence AC and NC are different .ie. the
Hi Bruno.
I have sent it to you.
The key to the paper is that it should be regarded as an engineering
document. I am embarked on building a real AGI using the real physical
world of components in an act of science. Based on being inspired and
guided by neuroscience, I have identified two
Hi Colin,
I have sent it to you.
Thanks.
The key to the paper is that it should be regarded as an engineering
document. I am embarked on building a real AGI using the real
physical world of components in an act of science.
OK. Although, as you know, (or should know) the real
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually, comp prevents
artificial intelligence. This does not prevent the existence, and
even the apparition, of intelligent machines. But this might happen
*despite* humans, instead of 'thanks to the humans'.
This sounds really strange. So if we
On 11 Jun 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually, comp prevents
artificial intelligence. This does not prevent the existence, and
even the apparition, of intelligent machines. But this might happen
*despite* humans, instead of 'thanks to the humans'.
This
On 6/11/2011 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jun 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually, comp prevents
artificial intelligence. This does not prevent the existence, and
even the apparition, of intelligent machines. But this might happen
*despite*
Hi Colin,
On 07 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature',
International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011.
1-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613
The paper has finally been published.
Hi Colin,
I'm interested in a preprint. I know I saw an earlier version, but I'm
interested in how it looks nowm after going through referees.
Cheers
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:15:24AM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
JoMC is relatively new. My own institution (Unimelb) doesn't
subscribe
Hi Colin,
Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy of
your paper?
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Colin Hales
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi,
Hales, C.
Even an affiliation doesn't seem to help.
Brent
On 6/7/2011 1:49 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Colin,
Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy
of your paper?
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message- From: Colin Hales
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM
Hi,
JoMC is relatively new. My own institution (Unimelb) doesn't
subscribe the Journal is very specialized as well
The ISI search engine won't see it either. It takes time for the
journals to earn enough cred to get visible and accessible... even the
Journal of Consciousness Studies
201 - 227 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
