On 6/13/2014 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
That's a classic example of the sore loser syndrome, those humans with their deep human
insights will get clobbered by the computer in just a few moves. And I don't want to
hear about how that doesn't count because of blah blah and all the machine is
of 'no'. But they are all
cases of being 'beside' the point. Not everything is suitable to be left
generic. A detailed test won't in the tray of what is.
It seems to me one doesn't have to envisage very far down the path of
what designing a proper test would entail to fairly sure the task itself
On 13 June 2014 20:44, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this
humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already hugely
mind-bogglingly incremental. It has
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
list/forum
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
list/forum
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a
comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors
haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e.
they've been
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by
a
comparison of
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have
We all have our little kinks :)
On 14 June 2014 14:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of modern
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 08:41:42PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago,
going by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That
is, the processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have
On 14 June 2014 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors
Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
Brent
The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when
they build vacuum
On 12 Jun 2014, at 8:54 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But when I asked my computer if it could manage that, it said I'm afraid I
can't do that, Liz.
Also it refuses to open the front door, so I'm stuck in the garage.
Open the pod bay doors, HAL..HAL - open the pod bay doors,
On 12 Jun 2014, at 10:38, Kim Jones wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 8:54 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But when I asked my computer if it could manage that, it said I'm
afraid I can't do that, Liz.
Also it refuses to open the front door, so I'm stuck in the garage.
Open the pod bay
, but it's the only
tool we have for judging such things. If the judge is a idiot then the
Turing Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but
pretending to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong
judgement but such is life, you do the best you can with the tools
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 2:04 AM, LizR wrote:
Having just re-re-read my good friend Wikipaedia's article on this,
I'm still not sure exactly what Turing is proposing. It looks like
what you said - that both a man and a computer tries to fool the
judge that
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except that
a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the time.
If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be
doesn't
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except
that a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the
time.
If the
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:30:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except
that a glorified
On 12 June 2014 08:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except
that a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the
time.
If the TT has been watered down,
that. The diagram doesn't help much either! (Still it sounds as
though Turing's measure of intelligence was whether one could appear
female, I can't argue with that :-)
Sterret referred to this as the Original Imitation Game Test.[57]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#cite_note
On 6/10/2014 2:04 AM, LizR wrote:
Having just re-re-read my good friend Wikipaedia's article on this, I'm still not sure
exactly what Turing is proposing. It looks like what you said - that both a man and a
computer tries to fool the judge that they're a woman! Which is bizarre, but so are
Well, obviously it was based on Snow White! What's bizarre is actually
committing suicide at all, and especially in a manner based on a children's
animated film. But I suspect that it was an accident, and the apparent
coincidence was just that.
(What is it with gay people and Maleficent, anyway?
Original Message
Can't be that hard.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/08/supercomputer-passes-turing-test/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/08/supercomputer-passes-turing-test/?ncid=rss_truncated
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
-turing-test/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/08/supercomputer-passes-turing-test/?ncid=rss_truncated
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email
Original Message
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/09/eugene-person-human-computer-robot-chat-turing-test
This story has some actual transcripts. Suppose you had to decide
whether the judge was a serious professional Turing contest judge or
an idiot just based
wrote:
Original Message
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/09/eugene-
person-human-computer-robot-chat-turing-test
This story has some actual transcripts. Suppose you had to decide
whether the judge was a serious professional Turing contest judge or
an idiot
the Turing Test.
On 10 June 2014 09:32, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except that
a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the time.
PS Nice to see the illustration is from 2001 given the title of my thread
asking. Some /people /couldn't pass the Turing
Test.
Although it's never mentioned anymore, the actual test that Turing proposed was that a man
and a computer would each pretend to be a woman in a conversation with the judge. If the
computer could fool the judges as well as the man could
someone autistic.
PPPS were the judges also computers? Just asking. Some *people *couldn't
pass the Turing Test.
Although it's never mentioned anymore, the actual test that Turing
proposed was that a man and a computer would each pretend to be a woman in
a conversation with the judge
Was that true in all the versions he published? I read the second version
of the test and wasn't sure if he meant the computer was trying to imitate
a woman, or just fool the judge that it was a person. It seems a bit
bizarre to have the judge trying to work out if it's a woman or a man
-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’
To: swi...@yahoogroups.com swi...@yahoogroups.com, yann...@gmail.com
yann...@gmail.com
Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing
Richard, its a step up, but its not a Turing Test. When it fools you into not
knowing who you had a conversation with, especially, if you didn't know if a
Turing challenge was being performed, then I'd say, yes.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
To: everything
Grrr. This means that a computer programme is better at passing the Turing
test than I am.
On 29 October 2013 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Richard, its a step up, but its not a Turing Test. When it fools you into
not knowing who you had a conversation with, especially, if you didn't know
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
On 9/11/2013 5:19 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I don't think that argument holds water. I can't exclude it of course; unlike some
around here I know I don't know; however it does not seem to me that this is an
inevitable result of the mechanics of processing choice... of making comparisons,
it, so I'm
assuming you read it:
...I'm arguing that there is no illusion of free will...
Could I have been any clearer?
All the best
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 21:30:47 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test
I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
things.
Yes, they are two very different things; one is gibberish and the other is
not.
*to argue that “free will”, “self-awareness” etc. are just noise [...] *
Only a fool would say self-awareness is just noise, and
You cannot say you meditate on choices and make decisions and then in
the next breath say that we are deterministic.
Why the hell not?!
Either we are programs – in which case given a knowledge of our
algorithms our behavior and outcomes should be predictable based on a
knowledge of some
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/5/2013 8:34 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote
@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:36:17 -0700
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject
at it, and if it spends little
processing power thinking about it then it probably finds object X to be
rather boring. This is exactly precisely the same test that we use to
determine the feelings in our fellow human beings because it is the only
test known to determine the inner life of others. And don't
--
From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:36:17 -0700
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb
of it, if it
attacks it then the robot is probably angry at it, and if it spends little
processing power thinking about it then it probably finds object X to be
rather boring. This is exactly precisely the same test that we use to
determine the feelings in our fellow human beings because it is the only
test known
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I hated
it there and wanted to get back home I would have complete and absolute
free will, but if I ever
On 9/5/2013 10:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I hated it there and
wanted
2013/9/5 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I
hated it there and wanted to get back home I would have
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:30 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Hi Chris
I also do not KNOW whether
On 04 Sep 2013, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain produces high fidelity illusions for us most
of our waking lives. For example the way we perceive our sight is
very different from the intermittent stream of neural signals that
On 03 Sep 2013, at 18:23, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
indeed free does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a
local freedom degrees spectrum.
It doesn't even do that. Will is the set of things I want to do,
It is
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain produces high
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
**
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
You are merely being argumentative here.
I AM NEVER ARGUMENTATIVE!
You certainly do have a very clear idea of the sensations you experience
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Assuming comp it is absolutely undecidable if our universe (if it
exists) is enumerable or not enumerable,
I make no assumptions whatsoever regarding comp, I never touch the stuff;
but if time and space are quantized (a
2013/9/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
**
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
You are merely being argumentative here.
I AM NEVER ARGUMENTATIVE!
You certainly do have a very
On 9/4/2013 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
If consciousness is fundamental, and I think it probably is, then after saying that
consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed there is simply nothing
more to say on the subject, if there were then it wouldn't be fundamental.
I don't
On 9/4/2013 10:00 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:43 PM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're still looking at it backwards, as though there were some
alternative that would be *really real* and not an illusion; as though a
video camera just recording everything would capture the reall real and
the would
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/4/2013 10:00 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: meekerdb mailto:meeke
On 9/4/2013 2:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Our brain's are supplying us with our reality and two people immersed in the same
environment will often come away with different descriptions of that environment and
will experience different realities when immersed in that environmental stream of
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/4/2013 2:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer
On 9/3/2013 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
If not then my actions could not be predicted because they happened for
no reason, they were random.
Or because of the halting problem,
The halting problem involves predictability not determinism; a Turing
Machine is 100%
On 02 Sep 2013, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
indeed free does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a local
freedom degrees spectrum.
It doesn't even do that. Will is the set of things I want to do, but some
of those things may not be physically possible,
species that pass the mirror test. Clearly there is some kind of
evolutionary motivation for all of this investment in what you reduce to
free will is just a noise that some bipeds like to make with their
mouth. Cows make a different noise, cows say Moo.
Evolution did not go through all
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted
beforehand, because then the
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot
of energy into “free will”
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
“self-awareness”, and other qualia that
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:12 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Hi Chris
if in the end it is an infinitely regressing hall of mirrors, a cosmic
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our species
expends on creating this sensation within ourselves -- whether it is actually real or an
elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to carefully create this
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote
...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy
our species expends
On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go
From: Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Of course it didn't. In order to avoid
@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Of course it didn't. In order to avoid the impression of free will
evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain produces high fidelity illusions for us most of our waking lives.
For example the way we perceive our sight is very different from the intermittent stream
of neural signals that begin their journey from our retinas. Did you know
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted beforehand,
because then the computer's
On 9/2/2013 8:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
computer
precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the
are not
identical.
Even better as a improvement over Dr. Turing's Test, would be I want you
to live.
Saying I want to live means nothing, its actions that count. As I
mentioned before from the early 1970's deep space probes have been going
into safe mode and stop collecting scientific data
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I have noticed a disturbing trend, the use of the word emergent as a
excuse for not thinking.
Sometimes that might be the case. Here, it's context. Free will is a
human concept.
That is incorrect,free will is not a human
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I have noticed a disturbing trend, the use of the word emergent as a
excuse for not thinking.
Sometimes that might be the case. Here, it's context.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
do you think I am trying to pretend that I am deterministic within my
own self?
I think you believe you are not deterministic and also not not
deterministic, which is equivalent to saying I think you believe in
Lets jump ahead of the logic and technology, and presume a successful digital
imitation of the human brain in several decades. More than the Turing Test,
assuming that no programmer or developer inserts a complex program, made to
fool human observers, would not a computer that says I want
The example of heliocentric vs geocentric views is a good one to show the
limitation of the reductionist impulse. While Earth happens to be a part of a
heliocentric topology, the fact that it is easy to mistake the Sun for the more
'moving object' is not in any way an endorsement of the
Even better as a improvement over Dr. Turing's Test, would be I want you to
live. If this isn't faked by a clever developer, then that qualifies as a
separate, and better, living thing, then most of us humans.
-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 spudboy...@aol.com
To: everything
On 8/31/2013 10:12 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Lets jump ahead of the logic and technology, and presume a successful digital imitation
of the human brain in several decades. More than the Turing Test, assuming that no
programmer or developer inserts a complex program, made to fool human
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:21 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Even better as a improvement over Dr. Turing's Test, would be I want you to
live. If this isn't faked by a clever developer,
Can you clarify the distinction between fake wanting to live and real
wanting to live? Or even wanting
long chain of individual events
Then it's deterministic but we don't know it's deterministic.
To give an example say the test subject almost lost their life when they
were putting down red triangle on the road to warn on-coming traffic that
their vehicle was disabled on the side of the road
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 24 Aug 2013, at 17:57, Quentin Anciaux
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
What happens to a universal Turing machine, if the tape itself is being
written by some other process
The same thing that happens to you when you get pushed around by the
external environment.
John K Clark
--
: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
What happens to a universal Turing machine, if the tape itself is being
written by some other process
The same thing that happens to you when you get pushed around
that
people who have grown up in those cultures are possessed of this 'cosmic
illusion', yet their day to day phenomenology will be more or less the same as
yours or mine.
All the best
From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test
On 24 Aug 2013, at 17:57, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/8/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote
The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon --
the CPU chips for example are what our computers
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote
If X = Y AND Y = Z then X = Z This is also logically true, but also has
no substantial bearing on how the dynamic processes by which the mind
arises from the 86 billion neuron and 100 trillion connection two phase
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is, as always, a confusion of emergence levels. My will is an emergent
concept,
I have noticed a disturbing trend, the use of the word emergent as a
excuse for not thinking.
that has no relevance to the microscopic realm
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is, as always, a confusion of emergence levels. My will is an
emergent concept,
I have noticed a disturbing trend, the use of the word emergent as
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/27/2013 3:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Bullshit. Axioms don't need proof, and the most fundamental axiom in all
of logic is that X is Y or X is not Y. Everything else is built on top of
that. And only somebody who was absolutely desperate to prove the
301 - 400 of 686 matches
Mail list logo
