On Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 5:10:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/24/2018 5:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:10 PM Philip Thrift > wrote:
>
> *> Some in AI will say if something is just informationally intelligent
>> (or pseudo-intelligent) but not
When presented with the Monty Hall problem, I could not understand it
without writing a program to help me. I guess that puts me in the good
company of Paul Erdos, according to Wikipedia...
--
Mark Buda
I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 6:58 PM John Clark
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:40 AM Philip Thrift wrote:
Dennett's said:
“*The elusive subjective conscious experience—the redness of red, the
painfulness of pain—that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion*.”
The trouble with the above statement isn't so much that it's false, the
trouble is
On the other hand, some say you really don't understand something unless
you can write a program that encodes that understanding.
Can you encode your understanding of the Monte Hall problem in a "logical"
(or proof assistant) language?
- pt
On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 10:11:08 AM UTC-6,
What I did at the time was write a Monte Carlo simulation. I don't know any
of those languages well enough to do anything useful with them yet.
I want to use one of the proof assistant languages for some the AGI stuff I
am trying to work on, but I am not sure yet which one best suits my needs.
I
*Coq* seems to be a widely used proof assistant language with lots of
examples of use.
A recent proof system I've seen written about is *Imandra*
[ https://www.imandra.ai/ ] which has been applied to the Monte Hall
problem
[
6 matches
Mail list logo
