On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point
On 8/11/2012 11:28 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55
On 12.08.2012 08:53 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:28:42AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Okay. Let us take then a self-driving car. Is it intelligent?
Evgenii
Could be. A self-driving car that navigates a simple environment with
beacons and constrained tracks
On 12.08.2012 08:39 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/11/2012 11:28 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:48:06AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Please look at self-driving cars from the Standford course on AI:
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/12/self-driving-cars.html
The question however, how you define intelligence so that to make
such a self-driving car more
On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:53, Roger wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
But Dennet has no agent to react to all of those signals.
To perceive. To judge. To cause action.
To do those, an agent has to be unified and singular -- a point of
focus--
and there's no propect for such in current neuroscience/
On 12.08.2012 09:45 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:48:06AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Please look at self-driving cars from the Standford course on AI:
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/12/self-driving-cars.html
The question however, how you define intelligence so
On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:24, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Rationality isn't a very useful function. I only use it when I get
in trouble.
I don't need it to drive my car or do practically anything.
I doubt this. If you want to go on the left, you act accordingly, and
that is a use of
On 11 Aug 2012, at 01:57, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:36:22AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
But a course of action could be 'selected', i.e. acted upon, without
consciousness (in fact I often do so). I think what constitutes
consciousness is making up a narrative about what
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid.
Well OK, but there sure as hell is a lot of free will going
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason
On 11 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Roger wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Agreed. Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a
self or
feelings, which are qualitative. And intution is non-computable IMHO.
Computer have a notion of self. I can explain someday (I already have,
and it is
On 11 Aug 2012, at 13:03, Roger wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
IMHO Intelligence is part of mind, so is platonic and outside of
spacetime. It was there
before the universe was created, used to create the universe and now
guides and moves
everything that happens i9n the unverse. That's a
On 11 Aug 2012, at 13:22, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Personally I go with Roger Penrose and his conjecture that, as
I personally understand it, conscious experience is noncomputable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFbrnFzUc0U
Penrose is right, but with a wrong argument. The fact that
On 11 Aug 2012, at 14:56, Roger wrote:
Positivism seems to rule out native intelligence.
I can't see how knowledge could be created on a blank
slate without intelligence.
OK. But with comp intelligence emerges from arithmetic, out of space
and time.
Or for that matter, how the
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:05:20AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
However, without such a measure, a statement that life is mostly
unintelligent is ill-defined.
Informal perhaps, but hardly ill-defined. Much the same could be said
about the concept life.
In general, if we assume inexorable
On 12 Aug 2012, at 00:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/11/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/10/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is false? I mean comp can only defend a compatibilist (or
mechanist, deterministic) theory of free-will,
Hi Bruno Marchal
Computers can only deal with what can be put into words, ie what can be
discussed and shared.
Consciousness or awareness is a wordless experience.
There is a huge gulf between what we experience and what we say we experience.
The former is wordless, personal, private and
Hi Bruno Marchal
As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind:
brain objective and modular
mind subjective and unitary
The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced.
I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe
is the
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry.
Life is whatever can experience its surroundings,
nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference.
Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is selecting.
So only life can have intelligence.
Life is
On 12.08.2012 11:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is
On 12.08.2012 11:38 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:05:20AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
However, without such a measure, a statement that life is mostly
unintelligent is ill-defined.
Informal perhaps, but hardly ill-defined. Much the same could be said
about
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is false? I mean comp can only defend a compatibilist (or
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is
On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain
and mind:
brain objective and modular
mind subjective and unitary
OK. You can even say:
brain/body: objective and doubtable
soul/consciousness: subjective and
On 12 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless,
Life is an ill defined phenomenological concept.
Saibal
Citeren Roger rclo...@verizon.net:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry.
Life is whatever can experience its surroundings,
nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference.
Intelligence requires the
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other
part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure.
QED.
The physical universe is
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or
feelings
Do you have any way of proving that isn't also true of your fellow human
beings? I don't.
intution is non-computable
Not true. Statistical laws
This is already a consequence of computer science. All sound machines
looking inward, or doing self-reference, cannot avoid the discovery between
what they can justify with words, and what they can intuit as truth.
What do justify and intuit mean?
There are some machines out there that do not
Hi Roger,
I will interleave some remarks.
On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.
Allow me to use the analogy a
Hi Roger,
We distinguish between computers as physical objects and
computations which are not necessarily only those things that physical
computer objects do. My definition of a computation is any
transformation of information (which is defined as the difference
between two things that
On 8/12/2012 10:29 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness
On 8/12/2012 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and
mind:
brain objective and modular
mind subjective and unitary
OK. You can even say:
brain/body: objective and
On 8/12/2012 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 16:24 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45,
Hear hear! It is the shared delusion of many first person content.
On 8/12/2012 12:01 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physical universe, he or she necessarily must use
On 8/12/2012 2:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/12/2012 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain
and mind:
brain objective and modular
mind subjective and unitary
OK. You
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 03:55:15PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This is a question to Russell, as he has made a statement that life
need not be intelligent. This was exactly my question what
intelligent in this respect would mean.
I was not using it in a technical sense, but just the
On 8/12/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let phi_i be an enumeration of the (partial) computable function.
u is universal if phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). (x,y) = some number code for the
couple (x, y)
So can y be some number code for a pair (a,b) and b a code for a pair (c,d),...?
Brent
On 8/12/2012 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The
42 matches
Mail list logo
