J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 01:22:14 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
wonderfully predictable orbits.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13757-solar-system-could-go-haywire-before-the-sun-dies.html?fee
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 01:22:14 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> The solar system, for example, is not complex: the planets move in
> wonderfully predictable orbits.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13757-solar-system-could-go-haywire-before-the-sun-dies.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
"H
Derek Zahn wrote:
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
> A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
> has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
> by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
> we must as
How confident are you that this only-complex-AI limitation applies in
reality? How much would you bet on it? I'm not convinced, and I think
that if you are convinced too much, you made wrong conclusions from
your data, unless you communicated too little of what formed your
intuition.
I am comple
Derek Zahn said:
I have not been able yet to successfully grasp exactly what counts as
complex and what does not, and for things in between, how to judge the
"degree" of complexity.
I don't know what Loosemore's definitions are, but I do not believe
that a measure of the d
Richard: I get tripped up on your definition of complexity:
> A system contains a certain amount of complexity in it if it
> has some regularities in its overall behavior that are governed
> by mechanisms that are so tangled that, for all practical purposes,
> we must assume that we will neve
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between theoretical
models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at least 1980,
and one thing I have noticed is that people devise theoretical
structures th
J Andrew Rogers writes:> Most arguments and disagreements over "complexity" are
fundamentally > about the strict definition of the term, or the complete
absence > thereof. The arguments tend to evaporate if everyone is forced to >
unambiguously define such terms, but where is the fun in that.
I
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
H I detect a parody..?
That is not what I intended to say.
No, as horrible as it may sound, this is how I see the problem that
you are trying to address. If you can pinpoint some spe
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> H I detect a parody..?
>
> That is not what I intended to say.
>
No, as horrible as it may sound, this is how I see the problem that
you are trying to address. If you can pinpoint some specific errors in
my
On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
I have been trying to understand the relationship between
theoretical models of thought (both natural and artificial) since at
least 1980, and one thing I have noticed is that people devise
theoretical structures that are based on the as
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
surprising that people are complacent about it.
Derek
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
I read you "Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Theoretical
Psychology" article, and I still don't know what your are talking about
other than the game of life. I know you make a distinction between Richard
and non-Richard complexity. I understand computati
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
How confiden
y."
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Ed Porter wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Ther
Pearson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:42 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So when people are given a sentence such as t
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
> argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not
> surprising that people are complacent about it.
>
Derek,
I'll not parap
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the general
> complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved. I
> laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
>
How confident are you that th
Richard Loosemore:> I do not laugh at your misunderstanding, I laugh at the
general > complacency; the attitude that a problem denied is a problem solved.
I > laugh at the tragicomedic waste of effort.
I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity
argument back at y
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
There is no evidence you are more justified in laughing at my position than
I am in saying your complexity issues do not appear to represent a major
unsolved conceptual issues.
Remember I am not denying complexity issues don't exist. Instead I am
saying it is not cle
On 21/04/2008, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So when people are given a sentence such as the one you quoted about verbs,
> pronouns, and nouns, presuming they have some knowledge of most of the words
> in the sentence, they will understand the concept that verbs "are doing
> words."
iginal Message-
From: Derek Zahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Vladimir Nesov writes:
> Generating "concepts" out of thin ai
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
> generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a dozen get
> generated instead... now I have twelve times as many things to explain. If
>
Vladimir Nesov writes:> Generating "concepts" out of thin air is no big deal,
if only a> resource-hungry process. You can create a dozen for each episode,
for> example.
If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for
generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest tha
tune, and refine such control systems. I find it hard to believe that
within 3-8 years we won't see substantial stride made towards making roughly
Novamente-like machines. In 8 to 20 years I would be surprised if we do not
see machines that are at least at human levels in virtually all mental
ROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:43:37 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
.hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Stephen Reed writes:
Stephen Reed writes:
Hey Texai, let's program
[Texai] I don't know how to program, can you teach me by yourself?
Sure, first thing is that a program consists of statements that each does
something
[Texai] I assume by program you mean a sequence of instructions that a
computer can interpret and
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing
> I'm trying to understand.
>
> Some dude is telling my AGI program: "There's a piece called a 'knight'.
> It moves by going two squares in one dir
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:32:41 AM
Subject: RE: [agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
.hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} One more bit of rant
[agi] WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent
input and responses
Ed Porter wrote:
> admitting to having to eat my words, at least in part, saying there was
> something to your complex systems analysis viewpoint. >
>
Yes, understood and appreciated.
You
One more bit of ranting on this topic, to try to clarify the sort of thing I'm
trying to understand.
Some dude is telling my AGI program: "There's a piece called a 'knight'. It
moves by going two squares in one direction and then one in a perpendicular
direction. And here's something neat:
Ed Porter writes:
> How the concept of “knight” poofs into existence during a conversation
> about chess is no great mystery for a Novamente-like system. If a
> Novamente has former experience which chess they have, within their
> hierarchical memory recorded patterns and experiences with che
Ed Porter wrote:
Yes, understood and appreciated.
You know, when I talk about the complex systems issue I feel like an
engineer from Morton Thiokol who knows about the temperature
vulnerability of O-rings. Take a look at this extract from
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may200
WHAT ARE THE MISSING CONCEPTUAL PIECES IN AGI? --- recent input and
responses
BELOW ARE THE MOST RECENT DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING POSSIBLE MISSING CONCEPTUAL
PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT STAND BETWEEN US AND AGI.
THESE COMMENTS ALL RELATE TO IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH --- BUT IT IS
NOT CLEAR ANY OF
34 matches
Mail list logo
