On Aug 23, 7:44 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales
wrote:
> [Col] Nope. They won't/don't. It may (not shown conclusively yet) cause
> cellular malfunction in humans (like glioma). In inorganic replication, they
> will not be subject to biological malfunction because all the biological
> overheads are go
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
wrote:
> [Col] I’ve just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity
> Summit. What a ‘hoot’!
Really sorry I couldn't attend last weekend.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo
[Col] I've just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity Summit.
What a 'hoot'!
At the conference I made a somewhat thwarted attempt to introduce physical
replication as a 'roadmap item' for AGI. I tried to show that AGI may be
reached by constructing the actual necessary physics of
On 8/23/2011 3:33 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
I’ve just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity
Summit. What a ‘hoot’!
At the conference I made a somewhat thwarted attempt to introduce
physical replication as a ‘roadmap item’ for AGI. I tried to show that
AGI may be reache
On Aug 23, 5:53 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis wrote:
>
> *"So you agree that chemistry, which is all that the brain contains, is
> **no more magical than electronics?"*
> *
> *
> * - - - -O B J E C T I O N ! - - -*
> you added "which is all that the brain contains" smuggled into my position,
> w
Stathis wrote:
*"So you agree that chemistry, which is all that the brain contains, is
**no more magical than electronics?"*
*
*
* - - - -O B J E C T I O N ! - - -*
you added "which is all that the brain contains" smuggled into my position,
which contains ...all we know today and include into the
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:01 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis, allow me to barge in before Craig.
> I am glad you ask - the wrong question,
> I am not FOR the brain to think, it is a tool working in the process we did
> not so far deciphered. (That's exactly MY agnosticism). So we are talking
> a
Stathis, allow me to barge in before Craig.
I am glad you ask - * the wrong question*,
I am not FOR the brain to think, it is a tool working in the process we did
not so far deciphered. (That's exactly MY agnosticism). So we are talking
about tools, be it 'chemistry' (an explanational figment of c
On Aug 20, 9:36 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> Craig,
> you know more about the 'IBM-Synapse' achievement than myself (easy: I know
> nothing, did not even thopughtfully decipher the article in all its
> details).
> I would ask IBM (they may not reply of course) if their machine (chip?) can
> solve ANY t
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Craig,
> you know more about the 'IBM-Synapse' achievement than myself (easy: I know
> nothing, did not even thopughtfully decipher the article in all its
> details).
> I would ask IBM (they may not reply of course) if their machine (chip?) can
Craig,
you know more about the 'IBM-Synapse' achievement than myself (easy: I know
nothing, did not even thopughtfully decipher the article in all its
details).
I would ask IBM (they may not reply of course) if their machine (chip?) can
solve ANY technical problem barred by unsurmountable difficult
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14574747
Looks like we may be finding out sooner rather than later whether
there is more to the psyche than networking logic.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send em
12 matches
Mail list logo