Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It is
perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of
pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be
called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I
think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it
seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere near the level needed to
pass
or even hugely.
On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be
called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I
think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it
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 evolved over decades of incremental improvement
involving
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 software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
incremental. It has
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time,
You are right and I'll shut up now :)
Please don't shut up!
As long as we stay polite the fun is in
On 13 June 2014 01:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But although we may speculate that consciousness and physical events both
depend on computation (perhaps only in the sense of being consistently
described) it doesn't follow that a UD exists or the conscious/physical
world is an
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54:41 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
In the Is Conscious Computable? and Suicide Words God and Ideas
threads there is considerable
An intuition pump I use to think about the level of effort required to
achieve true AI is that it takes a human brain at least a year or two of
continuous training before it results in a talking human. Several more
years before you get to to the point where you can't easily trick that
little human
On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:28, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I am well aware of the two slit experiment. You can't send tronnies
one-by-one anywhere. They exist in twosomes and threesomes as
electrons,
positrons or entrons. The entron is the energy-mass of each photon.
Photons are self
On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
the randomness (in the sense of normal statistical testing) of
that deterministic chaos has no other rôle in free-will than [...]
Before you start lecturing about what
On 13 June 2014 03:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think you are assuming the point in question, i.e. that all the physical
interactions of brains with the painting and the rest of the world are
irrelevant and that the physical description of the painting is *just* the
pigment on
On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:51, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I don't see how consciousness is important is describing how our
Universe
was created and how it works. Our Universe existed for billions of
years
before there was intelligent life to be conscious.
IF there is a universe. We
On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:54, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
It [free will] is (simply) the will of a subject
I have no trouble understanding what will means, it's when free
is stuck in front of it that trouble arises.
I agree.
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb
theorem in fuzzy logic (meaning that they use the closed interval
[0, 1] has set of truth values. They illustrate that the truth
values of
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That said, we might still at this stage wish to point out - and
indeed it might seem at first blush to be defensible - that such
fictions, or artefacts, could, at least in principle, be redeemable
in
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Further more, I'm not even sure that the reductionist program of
looking for what's most fundamental (in a TOE) and reifying it
is the right way to look at things. It leads to making strings
or numbers,
On 13 Jun 2014, at 02:11, David Nyman wrote:
On 12 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course most physicists think the
mind/body problem is too ill defined a problem to tackle right now.
But this is Bruno's whole point and aim, isn't it? Given that the
whole subject
On 13 Jun 2014, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a garden of forking paths laid out by
deterministic physics, within which their conscious mind could
move around (within limits).
On 13 Jun 2014, at 10:44, 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 software we are using is already
hugely mind-bogglingly incremental. It has evolved over
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of
intelligence in something
On 13 Jun 2014, at 15:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time,
You are right and I'll shut up now :)
Please
On 6/13/2014 12:49 AM, LizR wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be called an
intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I think it designed fonts
or something?) At least as he described it, it seemed to be doing something clever, but
Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a garden of forking paths laid out by
deterministic physics, within which their conscious
On 6/13/2014 6:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time,
You are right
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We have agree that free will = will
If free will just means will then why stick on the free ?
= ability to make an image of an uncertain local future (will I drink tea
or coffee?), and to make choice
Did you really
Telmo:
I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word
'democracy' as the rule Cratos of DEMOS. the totality of people. You
(and probably others, too) mean It
as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY
(majority - called) 'voters'. Although it
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 15:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:06 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
Yes, cycles absolutely can be broken, last things first, but first, people
have to see in
On 6/13/2014 8:55 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 03:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think you are assuming the point in question, i.e. that all the physical
interactions of brains with the painting and the rest of the world are
irrelevant and that the physical description of
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 8:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but
On 6/13/2014 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free-will or will are high level cognitive ability of machine having enough
introspective ability.
But not to much! :-)
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 6/13/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb theorem in fuzzy logic
(meaning that they use the closed interval [0, 1] has set of truth values.
On 6/13/2014 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Further more, I'm not even sure that the reductionist program of looking for what's
most fundamental (in a TOE) and reifying it is the right way to look at things.
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
On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the
final analysis *everything*
On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:16 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be
doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in
the first
On 13 June 2014 23:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
and
their relation to modes of arithmetical truth. Absent those states and
modes, there would be no physics, no observer and nothing to observe.
At least that's Bruno's theory.
Well yes, it was Bruno's theory that I originally
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
Moreover, it is not
straightforwardly reducible to the underlying arithmetical entities
and relations, because the selective principle in question *depends
on complex,
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it
emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema.
It's not clear what emulates means. I think Bruno proposes that
arithmetical computation
On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it
emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema.
It's not clear
On 14 June 2014 12:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it
emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this
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 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly
explicitly to anything I say).
I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks of something or other on
the emotional level. I would say that people generally
On 6/13/2014 5:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 12:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Consequently, neither
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
OK looks like I will have to find more time to read the small print, i.e.
all the posts on here, or give up trying. Well, unless you'd care to
summarise the reasons you don't find Bruno's arguments very persuasive (On
days with an R I could do with some support for my instinctive feeling
that That
57 matches
Mail list logo
