The problem has always been complexity. If that hadn't been a problem the paths to achieve AI - even a general AI - would be so numerous that it would just be a normal programming project. It might take 10 or 20 years to fully develop the first good models. As far as Artificial Soul or Artificial Consciousness or Artificial Essence of Life. I don't even think that stuff is relevant. Jim Bromer
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI < agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > Mike > > Sooner or later, someone will stumble upon the activating algorithms. From > it will be born an artificial version of a prior intelligence and it would > exist on a computational platform. I'm not sure how long it would take, but > that is not relevant to my thinking. It will happen when it is meant to. I' > d like to help the dream by inserting my part of research into an > architectural blueprint. If we do not start, we'll never get there. I think > I'm ready to depart on a conceptual and logical spec of version 0.1. Not > all my own. Just doing the translation work. > > Rob > > > Archbold via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 12 September 2018 10:27 PM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] E=mc^2 Morphism Musings... (Intelligence=math*cJohn > et alonsciousness^2 ?) > > "Can you see the consciousness at work? Can you sense and immerse in > it? Can you hear the myriad of messages clipping by? If so, you'll > realize it is pervasive, endless, and not locality driven, not > discrete. Like the waves of the ocean, the outcome of a whole universe > conspiring to tell its tale." > > The above is pretty good. Actually that was basically where I was at > last night when I decided AGI was impossible. A conclusion which I > don't care about though... The problem is made worse with all the hype > that leads people to believe the above is just thiiiiiiiis close to > being automated. The enemy of the people here being the combinatorial > explosion and the curse of dimensionality. > > On 9/12/18, John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI <agi@agi.topicbox.com> > >> > >> Challenging a la Haramein? No doubt. But that is what the adventure is > >> all > >> about. Have we managed to wrap our minds fully round the implications of > >> Mandelbrot's contribution? And then, there is so much else of science to > >> revisit once the context of an AGI has been adequately " boundaried". > > > > Cheers to Mandelbrot not only for the math and science but for the great > > related art and culture. and music even! Fractal music 😊 > > > >> Imagine if "we" could engineer that (to develop an ingenious > >> consciousness- > >> based engine), which the vast majority of researchers claim cannot be > >> done? > >> Except for lack of specific knowledge and knowhow and an inadequate > >> resource base (for now), I see no sound reason why such a feat would not > >> be > >> possible. > > > > Big project 😊 > > > > IMO successful AGI will use consciousness functionally but won't call it > > that since it causes so much hyperventilation. Researchers want > > non-conscious AGI so it doesn't go rogue LOL. Hmmm wonder about that. > Could > > non-conscious go rogue anyway... and is non-conscious even possible. > > > > John > > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T59bc38b5f7062dbd-Ma495ee95e88a041b853fd878> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T59bc38b5f7062dbd-M0e2bcb708f964bf532c4c045 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
