Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 6:05 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: * > Actually I think they would be careful NOT have it value its survival. > * > I think that would mean the AI would need to be in intense constant pain for that to happen, or be deeply depressed like the

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On 9/10/2019 1:44 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via > wrote: /> Being sane, by human standards, includes having values that humans share, like survival, curiosity, companionship...but there's no

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On 9/10/2019 1:10 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: Deep nets are "algorithms" too. One can print out the gazillion weights of the "neural" sigmoid functions of the connections after it has deep-learned. That's just an algorithm that a human couldn't read very well, because if it is

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > * > Being sane, by human standards, includes having values that humans > share, like survival, curiosity, companionship...but there's no reason that > an AI should have any of these*. > The

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 2:42:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/10/2019 6:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 6:17:06 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 9:07:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On 9/10/2019 6:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 6:17:06 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 9:07:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

Sent: Mon, Sep 9, 2019 9:02 pm Subject: Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 08:09:48PM +, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > I concur-which may discourage you? On a small futurist pocket I post > to, I asked someone who seemed to take AI very ser

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On 9/9/2019 10:16 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:34:19PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/9/2019 6:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: Why escape to space when there a lots

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 6:17:06 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 9:07:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >>>

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:17 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Algorithms are if anything formal systems of reasoning. A computer > follows a sequenced set of logical instructions that emulate reasoning, > I don't see the difference between emulating reasoning and

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 9:07:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *> Why do you think this has anything to do with intelligence and >>> reasoning

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:32:28 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 4:06:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> Just 4 years ago 700 AI programs competed against each other and tried to >> pass a 8th-Grade multiple choice

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:34:19PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/9/2019 6:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > >wrote: > >>Why escape to space when there a lots of resources here?  An AI with >

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On 9/9/2019 6:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: Why escape to space when there a lots of resources here?  An AI with access to everything connected to the internet shouldn't have any trouble taking control of the

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> Why do you think this has anything to do with intelligence and >> reasoning ability?* >> > > Oh for heaven's sake! This whistling past the graveyard is getting

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > Why escape to space when there a lots of resources here?  An AI with > access to everything connected to the internet shouldn't have any > trouble taking control of the Earth. > > Brent Have a look around, or

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

automation in factories, farms, mines,etc. first. Then there would be an announcement of some similar intelligence test, except not K-12, it would be on the masters, doctoral & post doctoral level and the estimated i.q. would be crazy, high. Then things would seemingly go quiet for a year, and the

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

In other > words, something like precursors. His view was that we will see > greatly increased automation in factories, farms, > mines,etc. first. Then there would be an announcement of some > similar intelligence test, except not K-12, it would be on the > masters, doctor

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

automation in factories, farms, mines,etc. first. Then there would be an announcement of some similar intelligence test, except not K-12, it would be on the masters, doctoral & post doctoral level and the estimated i.q. would be crazy, high. Then things would seemingly go quiet for a year, and the

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> Why do you think this has anything to do with intelligence and reasoning > ability?* > Oh for heaven's sake! This whistling past the graveyard is getting ridiculous. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 4:06:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Just 4 years ago 700 AI programs competed against each other and tried to > pass a 8th-Grade multiple choice Science Test and win a $80,000 prize, but > they all flunked, the best one only got 59.3% of t

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

I thought 94% was the lowest A (A-). @philipthrift On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 5:06:33 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Just 4 years ago 700 AI programs competed against each other and tried to > pass a 8th-Grade multiple choice Science Test and win a $80,000 prize, but > they

An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

Just 4 years ago 700 AI programs competed against each other and tried to pass a 8th-Grade multiple choice Science Test and win a $80,000 prize, but they all flunked, the best one only got 59.3% of the questions correct. But last Wednesday the Allen Institute unveiled a AI called "A

test ignore

Test test test -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the

Re: Test 20190218

Mysterious? No! Lobian? Yes! -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Feb 21, 2019 9:24 am Subject: Re: Test 20190218 On 18 Feb 2019, at 23:22, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Received! Thanks. Eventually I got the older messages. I don’t

Re: Test 20190218

> From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list > Sent: Mon, Feb 18, 2019 4:10 am > Subject: Test 20190218 > > Hi, > > This is a test. I did not get my last answers back. I guess some problem with > google account… > > Sorry, I will try to send them again. I will see on th

Re: Test 20190218

Received! -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Feb 18, 2019 4:10 am Subject: Test 20190218 Hi, This is a test. I did not get my last answers back. I guess some problem with google account… Sorry, I will try to send them again. I will see on the web

Test 20190218

Hi, This is a test. I did not get my last answers back. I guess some problem with google account… Sorry, I will try to send them again. I will see on the web google pages. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List&q

Re: Robot passes AI test

ng in relation with some notion of truth/reality. That is not testable per se (only provable for simple Löbian machine, like Peano arithmetic). To me, the Löbian discourse (sum up by the modal logic G), together with the truth, sum up by G*, makes me think that Peano arithmetic has

Re: Robot passes AI test

I have not read the paper yet, but I can't help but think that if you define according to some computational outcome then you have set a goal that you can achieve with computation. LC On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 6:04:20 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > And consciousness? > > > *Robot

Robot passes AI test

And consciousness? *Robot Passes AI Test* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95aYLmG0wt8 http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/SBringsjord_etal_self-con_robots_kg4_0601151615NY.pdf Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List&q

Re: Neural networks score higher than humans in reading and comprehension test

However, challenging the “comprehension” description, Gary Marcus <http://garymarcus.com/>, PhD, a Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at NYU, notes in a tweet that “the SQUAD test shows that machines can highlight relevant passages in text, not that they understand those pa

Neural networks score higher than humans in reading and comprehension test

Microsoft achieved 82,650 on the Stanford University reading and comprehension test, the best human score so far is 82,304. http://www.kurzweilai.net/deep-neural-network-models- score-higher-than-humans-in-reading-and-comprehension- test?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter_campaign= c8f5d1257b

Re: TEST

Looked Ok to me, DN. -Original Message- From: David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Apr 9, 2017 8:43 pm Subject: TEST Possible problems with posting. -- You received this message because you ar

TEST

Possible problems with posting. -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send

RE: Idiot Test

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 8:07 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Idiot Test On 14 Aug 2015, at 23:21, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote

Re: Idiot Test

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Idiot Test Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:27:29 +0200 On 13 Aug 2015, at 13:15, Kim Jones wrote: OK - so the inability to be sure if someone is an idiot is just as fraught as trying to be sure that they are intelligent, I

Re: Idiot Test

On 14 Aug 2015, at 23:21, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Idiocy only ever applies to other people

Re: Idiot Test

explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you

Re: Idiot Test

point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity. A thought bubble as we say nowadays. Just one grade better

Re: Idiot Test

Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things are done only by others, never by me! Why I speak of the need for some fabled 'test' - a bit like Alice drinking from the bottle marked 'drink me'. Alice was no idiot. She had

Re: Idiot Test

From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically

Re: Idiot Test

From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things

Re: Idiot Test

On 8/14/2015 2:11 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things are done only by others, never by me! Why I speak of the need for some fabled 'test' - a bit like Alice drinking from the bottle marked 'drink me

RE: Idiot Test

@googlegroups.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:12 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Idiot Test I simply feel it is hard to identify idiocy when it hits closer to home. In fact, as I stated, holding a certain position or opinion may not, in fact be idiotic at all. I sometimes feel

Re: Idiot Test

everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:39 PM Subject: Re

Re: Idiot Test

ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot is by nature incapable of changing or modifying his stated beliefs. A hallmark

Re: Idiot Test

On 13 Aug 2015, at 01:06, chris peck wrote: Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying colours. lol. Looks you are the one mocking others, ... lol. I mean if the test

Re: Idiot Test

more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot is by nature incapable of changing

Re: Idiot Test

new, it just shows reasons to doubt more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot

RE: Idiot Test

missed the message From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Idiot Test Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:27:29 +0200 On 13 Aug 2015, at 13:15, Kim Jones wrote: OK - so the inability to be sure if someone is an idiot is just as fraught as trying to be sure

Re: Idiot Test

to this as 'baseline consciousness'. It is merely a starting point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity

RE: Idiot Test

Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying colours. lol. I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of psychedelic drugs then you all just failed to do

Re: Idiot Test

can't use!!! Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 07:06 PM Subject: RE: Idiot Test div id=AOLMsgPart_2_5295ac28-3689-4288-b9f4-76631c0cb089 style scoped

Re: Idiot Test

, it just shows reasons to doubt more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot is by nature

Re: Idiot Test

, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot is by nature incapable of changing or modifying his stated

Re: Idiot Test

Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however. On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:09:42 AM UTC+10, Kim Jones wrote: OK - perhaps this post is not entirely serious. I don't actually know. There appears

Re: Idiot Test

On 11 Aug 2015, at 02:09, Kim Jones wrote: OK - perhaps this post is not entirely serious. I don't actually know. There appears to be no reliable test of idiocy. Even people who invite others to participate in games of running along a lawn while a drone fires rockets at them may

Re: Idiot Test

On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:55, Pierz wrote: Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however. I agree, but it is not entirely obvious, as I think John C does not lie to himself, only to us. Sometimes, I am not sure

Re: Idiot Test

On 12 Aug 2015, at 9:42 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If you think you have a sure fire way to identify an idiot...it's you. Brent You, sir - are no one’s idiot. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To

Re: Idiot Test

of ... atheism (the non agnostic one 'course). Not that it makes you believe in anything new, it just shows reasons to doubt more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has

Re: Idiot Test

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​ Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however. Idiot or not at least ​John Clark ​knows how to spell his last name. John K Clark

Re: Idiot Test

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:51:37 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however

Idiot Test

OK - perhaps this post is not entirely serious. I don't actually know. There appears to be no reliable test of idiocy. Even people who invite others to participate in games of running along a lawn while a drone fires rockets at them may not actually qualify, ultimately, as idiots. It may

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 25 March 2015 at 15:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: If I ask you assuming Eastern Standard Time did the Big Bang happen on a Thursday? The ultimate version of Last Thursdayism ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:15 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: it will be more than human. I'm not sure what that means. It means that a future machine can perform any task in a way that is superior to way that

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:33 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Generally when Watson was wrong he knew he was probably wrong. I find that significant. I find that significant too, but this probability is

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Generally when Watson was wrong he knew he was probably wrong. I find that significant. I find that significant too, but this probability is ultimately computed by analysing frequencies of occurrence of terms and

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 26 March 2015 at 07:00, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Yes, I also suspect that no deity exists but it will, in the future. If you are curious about how this is already transforming into a religion, google for Roko's basilisk. Also the plot of Frank Herbert's Destination

Re: Turing Test

On 3/25/2015 2:05 PM, John Clark wrote: PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: What is our disagreement here exactly? You just seem to dislike my lack of reverence for Watson. I have no problem when people point out that Watson can't perform task

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: What is our disagreement here exactly? You just seem to dislike my lack of reverence for Watson. I have no problem when people point out that Watson can't perform task X, but it makes me nuts when they say Watson accomplished task X much better

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

This could be just thye benevolent dictator we need to sort out the planet we're ruining. I for one welcome our silicon based overlords... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Turing Test

On 3/25/2015 2:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Human-level intelligence seems to depend on much more complex interconnections between algorithms. I suspect that this level of complexity cannot be designed by humans directly, so I agree with you that we will probably need algorithms that evolve more

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

, only somebody terrified of machine intelligence would make that argument. Who is making that argument? Not me. Not Bruno. I flat out don't believe that. Forget about consciousness, nobody would say as Bruno has that the Turing Test can't even detect intelligence unless they were

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:52 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: In my opinion the fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that passing it is an act of deception. The computer has to fake being a human. Lying

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 25 March 2015 at 06:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Most people can't do that either. And researchers at the University of Edinburgh made a machine that can write jokes such as I like my relationships like I like my source, open. Well OK maybe it's not a particularly funny

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

to is intelligent. Yes, that is the important thing. That is not what the Turing Test asks, though. I believe the only reason he devised it to test for humanity rather than intelligence is that he thought if people knew it was a machine most would never admit it was intelligent regardless

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

talking to is intelligent. Yes, that is the important thing. That is not what the Turing Test asks, though. I believe the only reason he devised it to test for humanity rather than intelligence is that he thought if people knew it was a machine most would never admit it was intelligent

Re: Turing Test

On 3/24/2015 2:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: This does not mean that gigantic search trees cannot be used to create generic intelligence, but I am quite skeptical that they can. This skepticism comes from the observation that the human brain is highly associative, distributed and asynchronous. So

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: it will be more than human. I'm not sure what that means. It means that a future machine can perform any task in a way that is superior to way that any human who ever lived could using any definition of superior that you care

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

. That is not what the Turing Test asks, though. I believe the only reason he devised it to test for humanity rather than intelligence is that he thought if people knew it was a machine most would never admit it was intelligent regardless of what it did. And I think Turing was correct about that. and still

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

it again, only somebody terrified of machine intelligence would make that argument. Who is making that argument? Not me. Not Bruno. I flat out don't believe that. Forget about consciousness, nobody would say as Bruno has that the Turing Test can't even detect

Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

. Not Bruno. I flat out don't believe that. Forget about consciousness, nobody would say as Bruno has that the Turing Test can't even detect intelligence unless they were terrified of machine intelligence. I would, and in my experience most AI researchers don't take the Turing Test half as seriously

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: In my opinion the fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that passing it is an act of deception. The computer has to fake being a human. Lying takes intelligence, some have even suggested that the ability to deceive our

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

of other theories that are testable, then we can test those theories to test the idea that the parallel universes exist. And as Everett said, MWI is falsifiable because QM is falsifiable. Jason -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

To test for persons in parallel worlds, could multiple persons thinks along a specific topic, such as a country-store in exurbia, just before falling off to sleep. Then if that (or any dream occurs, see if the collaborators are also in that dream, and confirm that with them i the after-action

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Nov 16, 2014 4:46 pm Subject: Re: Can we test for parallel worlds? The MWI can also be viewed as not positing that any new worlds are created, but that the multiverse is a continuum

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

the essential features of peaks and troughs in the right places,” says Wiseman. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/can-we-test-parallel-worlds -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Nov 29, 2014 12:23 pm Subject: Re: Can we test for parallel worlds? But it can interact with your consciousness. If aliens in the Sombrero Galaxy create a simulation of your continued life after you die here on Earth

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

On 11/29/2014 9:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 9:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: One advantage of supposing there are pre-existing worlds which are identical up the point of differentiation is that it resolves the seeming

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

parallel universes to accept them. If they are a prediction of other theories that are testable, then we can test those theories to test the idea that the parallel universes exist. And as Everett said, MWI is falsifiable because QM is falsifiable. Jason -Original Message- From: Bruno

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: LizR wrote: On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript: mailto:yan...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy. I've been trying to follow

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

MWI renormalization is just a snooker. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: LizR wrote: On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com mailto:yan...@gmail.com wrote: Collapse is necessary

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

I believe the answer is that worlds differentiate in the MWI, rather than splitting. There is already a continuum of identical worlds, which differentiates into 2 continua, one with spin up and one with spin down. At least according to the diagrams in FOR of a coin toss etc (iirc) -- You

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy. I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can grasp? It seems to me that if

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

LizR wrote: On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy. I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

If Feynman could renormalize, why can't MWIers(;) On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto: yann...@gmail.com wrote: Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

to 41 interacting worlds. “It certainly captured the essential features of peaks and troughs in the right places,” says Wiseman. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/can-we-test-parallel- world Deutsch has priority on this idea. Are you sure that it is the same idea? I guess you

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

On 21 Nov 2014, at 13:02, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds may be testable. “A

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

captured the essential features of peaks and troughs in the right places,” says Wiseman. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/can-we-test-parallel-world Deutsch has priority on this idea. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >