ill be a smaller place.
>
> Posted by Chad Hurley, CEO and Co-Founder, YouTube
> ------
> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbo
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 9/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike, Google has had basically no impact on the AGI thinking of myself or
> 95% of the other serious AGI researchers I know...
>
> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
--
Ben Goertzel, P
>
> That's the main reason why you think logic, maths and language are all you
> really need for intelligence - paper.
>
Just for clarity: while I think that in principle one could make a
maths-only AGI, my present focus is on building an AGI that is embodied in
virtual robots and potentially real
Matt wrote,
> There seems to be a lot of effort to implement reasoning in knowledge
> representation systems, even though it has little to do with how we actually
> think.
Please note that not all of us in the AGI field are trying to closely
emulate human thought. Human-level thought does not
per that
> demo? And do either virtual/real robots use vision?
>
> --
> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscripti
entioned several times on this list that NARS has no
> proper probabilistic interpretation. But, I think I have found one
> that works OK. Not perfectly. There are some differences, but the
> similarity is striking (at least to me).
>
> I imagine that what I have come up with is not
savvy audience. If you are unsure about your subject
matter, please feel free to run the idea by co-organizer James
Clement<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
extropy-chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 9/19/08, Jan Klauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Formal logic doesn't scale up very well in humans. That's why this
> > kind of reasoning is so unpopular. Our capacities are that
> > small and we connect to
>
> I haven't read the PLN book yet (though I downloaded a copy, thanks!),
> but at present I don't see why term probabilities are needed... unless
> inheritance relations "A inh B" are interpreted as conditional
> probabilities "A given B". I am not interpreting them that way-- I am
> just treatin
> And the definition 3.7 that you mentioned *does* match up, perfectly,
> when the {w+, w} truth-value is interpreted as a way of representing
> the likelihood density function of the prob_inh. Easy! The challenge
> is section 4.4 in the paper you reference: syllogisms. The way
> evidence is spread
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 9/20/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If formal reasoning were a solved problem in AI, then we would have
> theorem-provers that could prove deep, complex theorems unassis
> Beside the problem you mentioned, there are other issues. Let me start
> at the basic ones:
>
> (1) In probability theory, an event E has a constant probability P(E)
> (which can be unknown). Given the assumption of insufficient knowledge
> and resources, in NARS P(A-->B) would change over time,
> >
> >To pursue an overused metaphor, to me that's sort of like trying to
> understand flight by carefully studying the most effective high-jumpers.
> OK, you might learn something, but you're not getting at the crux of the
> problem...
>
> A more appropriate metaphor is that text compression is t
> > (2) For the same reason, in NARS a statement might get different
> > "probability" attached, when derived from different evidence.
> > Probability theory does not have a general rule to handle
> > inconsistency within a probability distribution.
>
> The same statement holds for PLN, right?
PL
>
>
> Think about a concrete example: if from one source the system gets
> P(A-->B) = 0.9, and P(P(A-->B) = 0.9) = 0.5, while from another source
> P(A-->B) = 0.2, and P(P(A-->B) = 0.2) = 0.7, then what will be the
> conclusion when the two sources are considered together?
There are many approac
>
> (And can you provide an example of a single surprising metaphor or analogy
> that have ever been derived logically? Jiri said he could - but didn't.)
It's a bad question -- one could derive surprising metaphors or analogies by
random search, and that wouldn't prove anything useful about the
> principle of maximum/optimum entropy. They usually requires much more
> information (or assumptions) than what is given in the following
> example.
>
> I'd be interested to know what the solution they will suggest for such
> a situation.
>
> Pei
>
&g
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found the paper.
>
> As I guessed, their update operator is defined on the whole
> probability distribution function, rather than on a single probability
> value of an event. I don't think it is practical for AGI --- we cann
on
> ILLOGICALITY. Take the classic Jewish joke about the woman who, told that
> her friend's son has the psychological problem of an Oedipus Complex, says:
> "Oedipus Schmoedipus, what does it matter as long as he loves his mother?"
> And your logical explanation is..?
&
and not to forget...
SATAN GUIDES US TELEPATHICLY THROUGH RECTAL THERMOMETERS. WHY DO YOU THINK
ABOUT META-REASONING?
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I understand that "my task" is to create an AGI sys
g
>> this matter urgently, not evading it..
>>
>> P.P.S. You should also bear in mind that a vast amount of jokes (which
>> involve the surprising crossing of domains) explicitly depend on
>> ILLOGICALITY. Take the classic Jewish joke about the woman who, told that
>&
> Now if you want to compare gzip, a chimpanzee, and a 2 year old child using
> language prediction as your IQ test, then I would say that gzip falls in the
> middle. A chimpanzee has no language model, so it is lowest. A 2 year old
> child can identify word boundaries in continuous speech, can sem
>
>
> I'm not building AGI. (That is a $1 quadrillion problem). I'm studying
> algorithms for learning language. Text compression is a useful tool for
> measuring progress (although not for vision).
OK, but the focus of this list is supposed to be AGI, right ... so I suppose
I should be forgiven
/303/
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible obje
yes, but your cost estimate is based on some very odd and specialized
assumptions regarding AGI architecture!!!
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 9/21/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That seems a
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 9/21/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Text compression is IMHO a terrible way of measuring incremental progress
> toward AGI. Of course it may be very valuable for other
S.
>
> --Abram
>
>
>
> ---
> agi
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.lis
alds' are refit ... ;-)
ben g
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 9/21/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >yes, but your cost estimate is based on some very odd and specialized
> assumptions regarding
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> The calculation in which I sum up a bunch of pairs is equivalent to
> doing NARS induction + abduction with a final big revision at the end
> to combine all the accumulated evidence. But, like I said, I need to
> provide a
e other. So, it has a 'par'
> value just like inheritance statements do. If there was evidence for a
> low par, there would be an effect in the direction you want. (It might
> be way too small, though?)
>
> --Abram
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Ben Goertz
22, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Sure, but it is a consistent extension; {A}-statements have a strongly
> NARS-like semantics, so we know they won't just mess everything up.
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
>
> -Abram
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The {A} statements are consistent with NARS, but the existing NARS
> inference
> > rules don't use these statements...
> >
> > A related train of th
Hi Pei,
> Assuming 4 input judgments, with the same default confidence value (0.9):
>
> (1) {Ben} --> AGI-author <1.0;0.9>
> (2) {dude-101} --> AGI-author <1.0;0.9>
> (3) {Ben} --> odd-people <1.0;0.9>
> (4) {dude-102} --> odd-people <1.0;0.9>
>
> From (1) and (2), by abduction, NARS derives (5)
See
http://goertzel.org/agiq.pdf
for an essay I just wrote on this topic...
Comments actively solicited!!
ben g
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be
inference.
Guesses, systematically managed, may help on the way from definite premises
to definite conclusions...
ben g
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:31 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
x.com/member/archive/303/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> >
>
>
> ---
> agi
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/ar
> > Yes. One of my biggest practical complaints with NARS is that the
> induction
> > and abduction truth value formulas don't make that much sense to me.
>
> I guess since you are trained as a mathematician, your "sense" has
> been formalized by probability theory to some extent. ;-)
>
Actually,
."
>
>
>
>
> ---
> agi
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by L
> > PLN needs to make assumptions about node probability in this case; but
> NARS
> > also makes assumptions, it's just that NARS's assumptions are more deeply
> > hidden in the formalism...
>
> If you means assumptions like "insufficient knowledge and resources",
> you are right, but that is not a
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Wow! I did not mean to stir up such an argument between you two!!
>
> Abram: This argument has been going on for about 10 years, with some
> "on" pe
> I think it's mathematically and conceptually clear that for a system with
> unbounded
> resources probability theory is the right way to reason. However if you
> look
> at Cox's axioms
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem
>
> you'll see that the third one (consistency) cannot reason
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Researc
>
> >
> > I mean assumptions like "symmetric treatment of intension and extension",
> > which are technical mathematical assumptions...
>
> But they are still not assumptions about domain knowledge, like node
> probability.
>
Well, in PLN the balance between intensional and extensional knowledge
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The distinction between object-level and meta-level knowledge is very
> clear in NARS, though I won't push this issue any further.
yes, but some of the things you push into the meta-level knowledge in NARS,
seem more like th
>
> >> I guess my previous question was not clear enough: if the only domain
> >> knowledge PLN has is
> >>
> >> > Ben is an author of a book on AGI
> >> > This dude is an author of a book on AGI
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> > Ben is odd
> >> > This dude is odd
> >>
> >> Will the system derives anyt
OK, we're done with AGI, time to move on to discussion of psychic powers 8-D
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed answer. Now I'm happy, and we can turn to
> something else. ;-)
>
> Pei
>
> On Wed, Sep
>
> If we have
>
> Ben ==> AGI-author
> Dude ==> AGI-author
> |-
> Dude ==> Ben
>
> the PLN abduction rule would yield
>
> s3 = s1 s2 + w (1-s1)(1-s2)
>
But ... before we move on to psychic powers, let me note that this PLN
abduction strength rule (simplified for the case of equal node
proba
>
> IMO Cyc's problem is due to:
> 1. the lack of a well-developed probabilistic/fuzzy logic (thus
> brittleness)
Cyc has local Bayes nets within their knowledge base...
>
> 2. the emphasis on ontology (plain facts) rather than "production rules"
>
While I agree that formulating knowledge
YKY,
>
> Example of a commonsense fact: "apples are red"
>
> Example of a commonsense rule: "if X is female X has an above-average
> chance of having long hair"
>
>
Cyc already has loads of these rules.
If you have a problem with Cyc's format, I **strongly** suggest that you
first
play around
sible, hierarchical connectionist models, although they lacked
> the computing power to implement them.
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ---
> agi
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:09 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Cyc already has loads of these rules.
>
> I wasn't aware of those, but I'll check it out. My
g out that they *are* explicitly devoting a
lot of resources to the problem ...
ben g
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 9/28/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >FYI, Cyc has a natural language front end
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 9/28/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Yes, the big weakness of the whole Cyc framework is learning. Their logic
> engine seems to be pretty poor at incremental, e
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:23 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > How much will you focus on natural language? It sounds like you want
> > that to be fairly minimal at first. My opinion is that chatb
rse context after spreading activation has quiesced.
>
> -Steve
>
> Stephen L. Reed
> Artificial Intelligence Researcher
> http://texai.org/blog
> http://texai.org
> 3008 Oak Crest Ave.
> Austin, Texas, USA 78704
> 512.791.7860
>
> - Original Message
> From:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It uses something called MontyLingua. Does anyone know anything about
> > this? There's a site at
> > http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/monty
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:03 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Parsing English sentences into sets of formal-logic relationships is not
> > extremely hard given curre
>
>
> I mean that a more productive approach would be to try to understand why
> the problem is so hard.
IMO Richard Loosemore is half-right ... the reason AGI is so hard has to do
with Santa Fe Institute style
complexity ...
Intelligence is not fundamentally grounded in any particular mechanis
>> Dynamics (CIMDynamics) requires a MindOntology page explaining it
>>> conceptually, in addtion to the existing nuts-and-bolts entry in the
>>> OpenCogPrime section.
>>>
>>> -dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>
> Cognitive linguistics also lacks a true deveopmental model of language
> acquisition that goes beyond the first few years of life, and can embrace
> all those several - and, I'm quite sure, absolutely necessary - stages of
> mastering language and building a world picture.
>
Tomassello's theo
d
>>
>> Texai considers all interpretations simultaneously, in a transient
>> spreading activation network whose nodes are the semantic propositions
>> contained within the elaborated discourse context and whose links are formed
>> when propositions share an argument
now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
> --
> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now&
> My guess is that Schank and AI generally start from a technological POV,
> conceiving of *particular* approaches to texts that they can implement,
> rather than first attempting a *general* overview.
I can't speak for Schank, who was however working a long time ago when
cognitive science was l
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:58 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> We are talking about 2 things:
> >> 1. Using an "ad hoc" parser to transl
Markov chains are one way of doing the math for spreading activation, but
e.g.
neural nets are another...
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 2008/9/29 Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Stephen,
> >
> >
asn't been publicized yet ...
but it does already
address this particular issue...)
ben
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> If Richard Loosemore is half-right, how is he half-wrong?
>
> Terren
>
> --- On *Mon, 9/2
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Ben: the reason AGI is so hard has to do with Santa Fe Institute style
> complexity ...
>
> Intelligence is not fundamentally grounded in any particular mechanism but
> rather in emergent structures
> and dynamics that ari
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To give a brief answer to one of your questions: analogy is
> mathematically a matter of finding mappings that match certain
> constraints. T
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Markov chains are one way of doing the math for spreading activation, but
> > e.g.
> > neural ne
> And if you look at your "brief answer" para, you will find that while you
> talk of mappings and constraints, (which are not necessarily AGI at all),
> you make no mention in any form of how complexity applies to the crossing of
> hitherto unconnected "domains" [or matrices, frames etc], which, o
you to specify as much "appropriate data" as you like
> - any data, of course, *currently* available).
>
>
> --
> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Well, funny perhaps to some. But nothing to do with AGI - which has
> nothing to with "well-defined problems."
>
>
I wonder if you are misunderstanding his use of terminology.
How about the problem of gathering
Encouraging Submission of Proposals involving Complexity and Interacting
Systems to Programs in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences :
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08014/nsf08014.jsp
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED
> You have already provided one very suitable example of a general AGI
> problem - how is your pet having learnt one domain - to play "fetch", - to
> use that knowledge to cross into another domain - to learn/discover the
> game of "hide-and-seek."? But I have repeatedly asked you to give me you
mies" ... I
just don't have time to write it right now I'm more motivated
personally to spend time writing new technical stuff than writing better
expositions of stuff I already wrote down ;-)
ben g
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Resea
I was saying that most
> people don't have any idea what I mean when I talk about things like
> interrelated ideological structures in an ambiguous environment, and
> that this issue was central to the contemporary problem,
Maybe the reason people don't know what you mean, is that your manner
>
>
> No, the mainstream method of extracting knowledge from text (other than
> manually) is to ignore word order. In artificial languages, you have to
> parse a sentence before you can understand it. In natural language, you have
> to understand the sentence before you can parse it.
More exactl
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Steve Richfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Ben,
>
> I have been eagerly awaiting such a document. However, the Grand Technical
> Guru (i.e. you) is usually NOT the person to write such a thing. Usually, an
> associate, user, author, or some such person who is on th
sually recognise the age of a person I'd tell them
> > that they're
> > probably wasting their time, and that indicators other than
> > visual
> > ones would be more likely to give a reliable result.
>
>
>
> ---
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I hope not to sound like a broken record here ... but ... not every
> >narrow AI advance is actually a step toward AGI ...
&
lex organizations quickly.
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --- On *Thu, 10/2/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote:
>
> From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [agi] Let's face it, this is just dumb.
> To: agi@v2.listbox.com
> Dat
Hi,
> CMR (my proposal) has no centralized control (global brain). It is a
> competitive market in which information has negative value. The environment
> is a peer-to-peer network where peers receive messages in natural language,
> cache a copy, and route them to appropriate experts based on con
3 informally when I am
> there if there's any interestso...which of these (any) is of
> interest?...I'm not sure of the kinds of things you folk want to hear about.
> All comments are appreciated.
>
> regards to all,
>
> Colin Hales
>
>
> --
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Resea
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/3/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You seem to misunderstand the notion of a Global Brain, see
> >
> > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GBRAIFAQ.html
> >
> &
the eventual
>> knowledge of the creature...they have already failed. I don't know
>> whether the community has internalised this yet.
>>
>> Colin,
>>
>> I'm sure Ben is right, but I'd be interested to hear the essence of your
>> empirical refu
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Matt:The problem you describe is to reconstruct this image given the highly
> filtered and compressed signals that make it through your visual perceptual
> system, like when an artist paints a scene from memory. Are you sayin
ps://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
> --
> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member
ting
> rather than the back and forth banter on this forum.
>
> With luck, it would help wring your ideas out and disarm your detractors,
> and provide more than a mere writeup - a piece to help sell your concept on
> a wider scale.
>
> Steve Richfield
> ===
&
>
> 3. I think it is extremely important, that we give an AGI no bias about
> space and time as we seem to have. Our intuitive understanding of space and
> time is useful for our life on earth but it is completely wrong as we know
> from theory of relativity and quantum physics.
>
> -Matthias Heger
>
>
> On 10/5/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmmm ... I doubt that a quick and dirty nontechnical
>>
>
> I would think that it should be technical, e.g. targeted for someone with a
> CS degree, but written as though the reader had
rk,
> 2006
>
> I am realising that I may have a contribution to make to AGI by helping
> strengthen its science base. I've run out of Sunday, so I'd like to leave
> the discussion there... to be continued sometime.
>
> Meanwhile I'd encourage everyone to get used to
Abram,
thx for restating his argument
>
> Your argument appears to assume computationalism. Here is a numbered
> restatement:
>
> 1. We have a visual experience of the world.
> 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient
> to compute one.
I do not understand his argume
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben,
>
> I have heard the argument for point 2 before, in the book by Pinker,
> "How the Mind Works". It is the inverse-optics problem: physics can
> predict what image will be formed on the retina from material
> arrangemen
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed. Colin would need to show the inadequacy of both inborn and
> learned bias to show the need for extra input. But I think the more
> essential objection is that extra input is still consistent with
> computationalism.
cool ... if so, I'd be curious for the references... I'm not totally up on
that area...
ben
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Arguably, f
current
>> issue.
>>
>> --Abram
>>
>>
>> ---
>> agi
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbo
ram
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> agi
> >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/membe
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben,
>
> I think the entanglement possibility is precisely what Colin believes.
> That is speculation on my part of course. But it is something like
> that. Also, it is possible that quantum computers can do more than
> nor
101 - 200 of 1216 matches
Mail list logo
