Re: [agi] Is this forum still happening?

and it's cargo cult, ends this year, a year where AGI and "AI" part company in a normalized (70 years overdue!) science of it. I know I'm too old to see the process to fruition. But I'm sure as hell gonna float its boat and fill it full of smart kids that will. Thanks for a

[agi] Is this forum still happening?

Test. Happy New year! Cheers Colin -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9cb9721bce147a11-M0d4aabfac57d71039acf28db Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

[agi] Re: New article: EM Field Theory of Consciousness

A new game. You're welcome. Cheers, Cokin On Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 5:15 PM Colin Hales wrote: > Hi, > This is to let you know of the arrival of this publication: > > Hales, C.G., and Ericson, M.L. (2022). Electromagnetism’s Bridge Across > the Explanatory Gap: How a Ne

[agi] New article: EM Field Theory of Consciousness

Hi, This is to let you know of the arrival of this publication: Hales, C.G., and Ericson, M.L. (2022). Electromagnetism’s Bridge Across the Explanatory Gap: How a Neuroscience/Physics Collaboration delivers Explanation into all Theories of Consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 16. https:/

Re: [agi] AGI in the news

You might also want to see this . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5rOEKl436g cheers Colin On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 7:15 AM Mike Archbold wrote: > This Canadian AI Startup is Using Artificial General Intelligence To > Create General-Purpose Robots With Human-like Intelligence > By Amreen

Re: [agi] A line in the sand for EM field Theories of Consciousness (EM ToC)

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 3:51 PM Quan Tesla wrote: > EM has been around for many years. It's not the source of consciousness, > just a symbol of brain activity. Neuroscience have been observing patterns > and drawn conclusions from it, not proven the brain was conscious of its > own existence and

Re: [agi] Re: A line in the sand for EM field Theories of Consciousness (EM ToC)

#x27;t allowed to -- they force out certain domain words > like cars/ trucks/ fuel, space/ rocket/ ship/ suit. We *need* each AI to > have a focused job, so they can focus! Letting it run and store new > thoughts etc would let it learn new goals. No need for a better AI there. > If you

Re: [agi] I was wondering if the mathematics of superposition can be effectively in AGI

overy. The system that incorporates consciousness can do this because some aspects of the character of the novelty itself is intrinsically available to it. I am now officially off Jim's hook. :-) cheers colin On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 11:34 AM wrote: > On Saturday, February 19, 2

Re: [agi] Re: I was wondering if the mathematics of superposition can be effectively in AGI

Sitting in a cafe, on a sunday morning . sorry to be so predictable. On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 4:07 AM Jim Bromer wrote: > The teacher gets into the subject at 9 minutes 45 seconds. > *Artificial General Intelligence List * > / AGI / see discussions

Re: [agi] I was wondering if the mathematics of superposition can be effectively in AGI

Hi Jim, I'm currently involved (Frontiers in Human Neuroscience) as an editor of a special issue on EM field theories of consciousness. Long hard slow road Apart from space and a functionally irrelevant gravitational field expressed by the mass of the atoms, the brain is 100% electromagnetis

Re: [agi] IBM and AGI

Indeed. The need for generality is ever more obviously the key to effectively acquiring competency in the specific. Ironic, for a computer company, if that generality precluded the use of general-purpose computers! On Wed, Feb 2, 2022, 8:54 AM Mike Archbold wrote: > This is a link to their n

Re: [agi] Re: How does a machine "understand"? What is your definition of "understanding" for an AGI?

Hi Mike, One of the problems in this grip on 'understanding' or 'knowing' is a confusion of competency in knowing X as having anything to do with general intelligence. When the time comes I could probably toss my hat into the ring on this. I recently had an opportunity to explain this to a bunch of

Re: [agi] Colin Hales mention in Salon editorial

Matt, The EM fields are not noise. They are chaotic, complex and deeply entwined in function. Indeed central to function. I have theory. I have a hypothesis. I am doing the experiments. I have a concept design for the chip. The central device device is on the floor next to me and testing is in play

Re: [agi] Colin Hales mention in Salon editorial

Hi Mike and Folks, I had a long private conversation on zoom with Thomas Nail and have seen 2 of his talks. He did a deep dive, including all the supplementaries, on my neuromimetic chip paper: https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.13298750.v4 As a result he's basically on-board with the ideas. Does

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Fri., 8 Jan. 2021, 12:45 pm , wrote: > I see 3 interesting PDFs above, I'll read them tomorrow. > Please view the videos as well when you get to section 3. *Artificial General Intelligence List * / > AGI / see discussions

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Wed., 6 Jan. 2021, 10:16 pm , wrote: > On Tuesday, January 05, 2021, at 5:25 PM, Colin Hales wrote: > > i) Natural General Intelligence was made by nature using brain signalling > physics. > > ii)The neuromimetic chip is Artificial General Intelligence done using an &

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Wed., 6 Jan. 2021, 3:08 am , wrote: > Is this just a chip that speeds up an algorithm? > > Speed is one thing, intelligence is another way to be better. I still hear > no explanation of any AGI. What is it you have? > i) Natural General Intelligence was made by nature using brain signalling p

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Tue., 5 Jan. 2021, 3:07 pm Matt Mahoney, wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021, 8:21 PM Colin Hales wrote: > >> >> Nature made natural general intelligence without computers, models or >> abstractions. Just brain physics. >> I guess it's up to the rest of

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:44 AM wrote: > What if not only could a non-simulated brain have unseen function, but a > non-simulated body may also have unseen function, and a natural dataset > from the real world like we get and not human made or limited has unseen > function? > > Without doing that

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 10:32 PM wrote: > Ah so I was right, he means making an AI based on real physics [may] set > loose abilities it wouldn't otherwise have if we miss some stuff in the > code. > > That's what you should have said from the start. Very short 1-liner. > > BTW to your statement th

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 3:16 AM wrote: > Or maybe Colin means (i) is the human brain naturally, (ii) is us creating > a real artificial humans brain where the actual physical implementation may > have effects that a computer sim wouldn't have (unless worked hard to code > in the physics/ rules), a

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 3:33 AM James Bowery wrote: > Carver Mead abides. His book "Collective Electrodynamics" has not > received the attention it deserves, IMHO. The ansatz of that book aligns > his interest in analog neural networks with Lester Ingber's > neurophysiological modeling of cortic

Re: [agi] Re: Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 12:30 AM wrote: > On Thursday, December 31, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Colin Hales wrote: > > (i) Observation of a natural context (empirical science). > > (ii) Observation of artificial versions of the natural > context. Call

[agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

Mike wrote: There is one other aspect of this that I like. It seems like when we think something, the thought presents as a kind of concrete, integrated totality in which we cannot easily break down to its constituen, usually disparate components (eg., an appearance, a memory, an imagination). A

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

OK. Xmas is behind us. Let's dance! On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:44 PM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, you haven't answered my question. I don't understand how electrical > noise from neurons magically makes intelligence possible. > The last thing that the EM fields are is noise. None of it is noise.

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 4:44 AM WriterOfMinds wrote: > Colin reminds me of Searle. I think the claim that underlies all his > arguments is "cognition cannot be achieved by algorithms." > Thanks for opening this door. The *paper* (not me) claims (with empirical evidence) that a science that assu

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

Matt, For years I have been trying to get one particular idea across that you continually fail to encounter. This is a problem with the functioning of a science. You seem to be unable to get your head around the idea that the operation of a science includes the creation of artificial versions of a

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

t each other. When I get there I'll do that. Thanks. >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM Colin Hales wrote: >> I love it. Perfect messy empirical work suited to man cave. >> >> Xmas chaos looms. Take care everyone. 2021 >> Colin >> >>

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

p. > This would allow you to inexpensively play with some of your ideas in a way > that a supercomputer would have a hard time matching. > > Steve > > On 11:38PM, Mon, Dec 21, 2020 Colin Hales >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:56 PM Steve Richfield < >&

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:56 PM Steve Richfield wrote: > Colin, > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:11 PM Colin Hales wrote: > >> Hi Steve, >> OK. Let's try: >> > > GREAT - some text to kick back and forth. Here goes... > >> >> Page 2: >>

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:11 AM James Bowery wrote: > It's even worse when you consider the fact that the empirical evidence for > psi is overwhelming and there is a quasi-religious opposition to > recognition of this fact in neuroscience let alone AGI theory. > I am a doubter of psi phenomena.

Re: [agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

tors out of an IC and > expecting it to do something useful.* > > > OK. Can you correct the errors in the above to match your view of reality? > > Thanks again for all of your efforts. > > *Steve Richfield* > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 8:28 PM Colin Hales wrote: > &

[agi] Preprint: "The Model-less Neuromimetic Chip and its Normalization of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence"

Hi, For a very long time I have been trying to articulate a fundamental issue in the conduct science of AI (AGI). The issue is the proper conduct of the science such that we can know, with empirical certainty, whether and under what circumstances, a general-purpose computed abstract model of nature

Re: [agi] Re: rotation back in the olden days

rote: > ok Colin Hales. We'll see you in 12 months' time and then know what you > imagined AGI to be. POCs are great deal breakers. It must work 100% as > designed, or else it's regarded as a total failure. There's no grey room > for excuses there, no such a thing as

Re: [agi] Re: rotation back in the olden days

I have won a grant to build proof--of-principle hardware at macroscopic scales. 12 months. Basic 'computational unit', intrinsically adaptive. 1 million times scaled up so neuroscientists can hold it in their hands and acclimatise themselves to how it maps to membrane activity and then AGI. It's

Re: [agi] Re: Meetup/Google hangout live presentation

On Thu., 5 Dec. 2019, 4:15 pm , wrote: > Will there be a recording of it online somewhere so someone can watch it > again later if they miss it > Not sure about that side of it. Probably not I'll find out. Assume no unless otherwise notified. Cheers Colin *Artificial General Intelligence

[agi] Meetup/Google hangout live presentation

Hi all, USA West coast time Seattle 7pm, there is a meetup in a Cafe organised by Mike Archbold. Here: https://www.meetup.com/Northwest-Artificial-General-Intelligence-Meetup-Group/events/266119002/?rv=cr1&_xtd=gatlbWFpbF9jbGlja9oAJDlhMjQ5NjZlLWY0MmEtNDZmNC1iNTVmLTZjYmFjMzI4ZTU5ZA&_af=event&_af_eid

Re: [agi] Against Legg's 2007 definition of intelligence

> > "Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide > range of environments" > > No. This is a definition of automation. Zero intelligence. Intelligence is a measure of an ability to achieve goals in environments never before encountered. Until the discourse gets this, th

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Jim, I love the mental image of the birds hauling a bike into the air. Orville without a helmet. Definitely retention of flight physics! :-) Colin On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:38 PM Jim Bromer wrote: > I just wanted to say that it seems likely that the Wright brothers (or at > least Orville) be

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

It occurs to me that the raw framework itself may not have been properly understood. So I've made a generic version. Please note that this framework was measured, by studying scientists. It is, in and of itself, an example of the science deliverables ('laws of nature') RIGHT *te*. that are depicte

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

g the first real discussion of how that science must be conducted including an empirical branch discarded in 1956. I hope I am communicating this clearly. Happy to keep going. It's important. Cheers Colin > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:54 PM Colin Hales wrote: > >> B

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

he > computation that occurs in the neural structures of the brain? And you take > issue with people assuming that both forms of computation "can create > equivalent levels (indistinguishable) of intelligent behaviour"? > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:18 PM Colin Hales wrote:

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Wed., 3 Jul. 2019, 7:05 am Matt Mahoney, wrote: > So if computation is not behind intelligence (based on 65 years of AGI > failure) and you have no idea what is, then what is the basis of your chip > design, and what do you hope to accomplish with it? > This just keeps on happening. I have e

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:59 PM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, in case you haven't noticed, Peter has actually produced some AI > (aigo, which seems to have better language understanding than Amazon's > Alexa, at least in the demos I've seen), while all you have is a theory > that AI comes from con

[agi] Steel-manning 101

-- Forwarded message - From: Rob Freeman Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Steel-manning 101 To: AGI I'm not sure there is any point in critiquing steel-man Colin. If you don't agree, it's not steel-man. The idea is to stop talking about yourself, and try to u

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Matt, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, yes you answered my questions about consciousness. To summarize, by > consciousness you mean qualia, that which makes you different than a > philosophical zombie. Since a zombie is by definition behaviorally > identical to a hu

[agi] Steel-manning 101

gards Colin On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:20 PM Rob Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:57 AM Colin Hales wrote: > >> ...I'd like to do something different this time. We're part of the 'old >> guard' and it's up to us to demonstrate how an intellect

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

11:46 AM wrote: > Colin, while I agree that steel-manning is a great strategy.. > > a) I don’t really have the time to do this – too busy creating AGI… > > b) I’ve never come close to understanding your arguments and/or disagree > with some of your fundamental assumptions > &

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Peter, On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:37 PM Peter Voss wrote: > AGI is not primarily about building a brain -- it is about building a > mind. The major discipline is not neuroscience but cognitive science (and > epistemology).. > > AGI is about figuring out what human-level cognition entails and t

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Next installment. Matt? This is where the questions you asked about consciousness get my answer, except for my specific proposal for the brain biophysics that originates consciousness. That discussion is implicit to the chip design. It's the last thing to do before the silicon replacement argumen

Re: [agi] Re: computer science vs cognitive science

Hi Peter, Bottom line: cognitive science is ultimately a branch of neuroscience that deals with the mind/behaviour without dealing with the science (biophysics) of consciousness. Decades ago it adopted a policy: 'computers as a metaphor for brains'. It then used computers very effectively in the c

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon., 1 Jul. 2019, 1:09 pm Costi Dumitrescu, wrote: > Engineering. Yes. > > But we do want to build artificial birds. Against the leaf eating > insects and other anthropization balancing items. > > Other industries studied birds too. The aircraft industry studied > (underwater) boats more than

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:02 AM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, in your quest to create an artificial consciousness, can you > explain: > > 1. How do you test a human, animal, robot, or program to tell if it is > conscious or not? > > 2. What aspect of human behavior is possible in a machine only if

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:08 AM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, you seemed confused. AGI is not science. It is engineering. Science > is about finding theories that make useful predictions and testing them > with experiments. Engineering is about designing and building solutions to > problems. > > Th

Re: [agi] ARGH!!! - Pull this plug already!

religion > - to create their own God. > > Trying to inject science into religion has so far met with universal > failure, and I expect no better here. > > I suspect the best you/we can do is make our case to attract those rare > dropins who really ARE interested in science rather

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 2:37 AM Costi Dumitrescu wrote: > Colin, any connection to mormon thought that you're aware of? Did or do > you attend any meetings or events? Or taking anything from that group? A > simple Yes or No. > > No. I am a devout atheist. :-) -

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 12:20 pm Costi Dumitrescu, wrote: > What is the most likely biological cell for an AGI robot to invent first? > Please be patient. I will get to my proposed design. Fundamentally, it's a 3D cellular automaton and each cell is literally made of the physics it's made of in t

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

hat's been created? Colin On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 12:16 pm Mike Archbold, wrote: > I think we can safely say that 1) much of the contention is due to how one > defines a computer and 2) the brain is definitely not a digital computer. > > > > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Colin Hal

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 8:29 am Alan Grimes via AGI, wrote: > > Questions? Comments? Problems? We need to get this right. I cannot > > depict the context of brain science and AI/AGI properly, nor the > > uniqueness of my chip design without everyone understanding this. It's > > required learning.

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Steve glad to see you back. On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Steve Richfield wrote: > Matt, Colin, et al, > > The REAL underlying problem is that AGI started too soon - there just > isn't enough known to be able to "fill in the blanks" and build generally > intelligent systems. Neuroscience ne

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi, Later (few years), once the background science issues are sorted out, I'll do the detailed planning/costing for likely route to the first AGI is as follows: 0) It is big science directed at one big result. It is a 'moon-shot' or 'CERN Collider' or a 'WEBB Telescope' or a 'Human Brain-Project'

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Thu., 27 Jun. 2019, 5:47 am Mike Archbold, wrote: > Probably what most people mean by computer is roughly the usual common > sense digital or perhaps quantum computer. There are also theoretical > hypercomputers. I guess I would define computer simply as something > that follows the usual form

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

of >> > conductive liquid. These were used to design motors and transformers >> using >> > the similarity of electric fields to magnetic fields. >> > >> > Also, the hand-crank mechanical tide computer now in a case at NOAA >> > headquarters, that saw

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

e 7000 TW. Global energy production is 15 TW. You can't > reduce power consumption by making transistors smaller because you > can't make transistors smaller than atoms. If you want to get anywhere > close to the Landauer limit of 3 x 10^-21 J per bit operation, then > you

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Steve? You seem to have gone quiet. Can we start a conversation along the lines you suggest? That is, directed at exploring our differences in what counts as an empirical science of artificial general intelligence? Colin -- Artificial General Intelligence

Re: [agi] Re: some fancy electronics

:-) Could you shine a light on your circuit and get a pic that gives me a clue about the wiring? It's all so foggy! Definitely a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine moment, except in the dark. cheers colin On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:22 PM wrote: > Haha you brightened my day. >

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:33 AM Steve Richfield wrote: > Colin, > > The obvious thing missing from neuroscience and AGI is application of the > Scientific Method. > > Theory: give enough computer scientists enough keyboards and time, and > they will eventually figure out or stumble on whatever i

Re: [agi] Re: some fancy electronics

Been banging on for years about EM field phenomena linking disparate objects (in the brain) to each other. Here you have exactly this phenomenon. The leakage fields of capacitors, and the inductance of wires and PCB, all manner of garbage that we normally try and exclude . fed by an electrochem

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:48 AM Steve Richfield wrote: > There seems to be a sort of universal confusion between "computer", > digital computer", "stored program computer", et al. > > My very first computer program composed rock and roll melodies on a > Borroughs E-101. It was a plugboard progra

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

quarters, that saw more than a century of usefull full time service. > > Like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, a computer is > anything that usefully computes, REGARDLESS of the intent or perception of > others. > > By this standard, a brain clearly IS a

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Wed., 26 Jun. 2019, 4:25 am Steve Richfield, wrote: > Stefan, > > I probably have more neuroscience background than anyone else on this > list, possibly excepting Colin, having worked as a research assistant in > the Department of Neurological Surgery at the University of Washington, so > I su

Re: [agi] test

Meanwhile, the actual science of artificial general intelligence languishes, intended, malformed and impotent. Those of us that actually want to do the real science of an artificial version of natural general intelligence ... have to stand back and watch. I've been deeply immersed in this full tim

Re: [agi] AGI Has Been Delayed

While you're at it . https://www.edge.org/conversation/rodney_a_brooks-the-cul-de-sac-of-the-computational-metaphor He's right. Real AGI will happen when we stop using computers. Not before. cheers colin On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:37 PM A.T. Murray wrote: > So says ROdney Brooks, and now l

Re: [agi] Yours truly, the world's brokest researcher, looks for a bit of credit

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:25 AM Mike Archbold wrote: > I remember when most people didn't know what "AI" meant. > > Now, it's the stuff of bar pickup lines. > *LOL* Into the noise of the bar you say "*Hi, I'm into AI*." ... with red-lined suavity. "*Wow! Are you? Do you really know that? How

Re: [agi] open source AGI effort

Matt: "When you put millions of these specialists together you have AGI." No you don't Says who? (1) Where's the proof? (2) Where's the principle that suggests it? You have neither of these things. Even if you had both these things you'd still have to build AGI and test it assuming they are f

Re: [agi] The future of AGI

Hi Matt, I'm giving myself a few minutes out from my self-exile to restate, like a broken record, what's going on with this. I know I'll get deafening silence and nothing will come of it. We are in a period like that. I read about them in the history of science. The grip of the received imbues the

[agi] Progress in the way Godel's work impacts AGI

A little bit of progress. Machine learning leads to unsolvable problem A relatively simple machine-learning problem has led researchers to a question that is mathematically unanswerable

Re: [agi] Honestly?

Hi MP, Two things regarding: On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:30 PM MP via AGI wrote: > My position: > > Who we are is nothing more than a few billion neurons in a calcium > enclosure and an annoyingly inefficient vehicle. > > So our intelligence, perceptions, actions, memories, and so on and so > fort

Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock.

> Next, should one be as bold as to develop the normalized, systems models > for establishing the two, cases for your proposed AGI-feasibility > experiment? Why not? One must set out on the journey to discover where the > road leads one to. > > Much of the "AGI blueprint" work

Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock.

eed free thinkers with critical abilities. > > Still, that would be a great shame. From what I've seen, once you drop > your superior attitude, the sense you talk makes for incredible reading. > There's so much to learn from your clear perspective. Now we need to see > more from you

Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock.

; I do not blame you for your perspective, but based on what I've > experienced during practical tests of these models, and subsequently > submitted as well-disguised field research to the IEEE for review, and > more, you are simply not properly informed yet. Not all knowledge is &

Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock.

On Sun., 19 Aug. 2018, 6:11 pm Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI, < agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: > Colin > > You're right, off course. My point is; if AGI would not deal with this > level of abstract, human communication of temporal, emotive states, how > would it ever be taken seriously to

Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock.

x27;s obligated > to, by scientific predicate. Goggle that. > > Strange tales. > > Rob > -- > *From:* Colin Hales via AGI > *Sent:* Sunday, 19 August 2018 12:15 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. > > > > On Sat.,

Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock.

e discussion could come to the seious attention of the real life counterparts. This has gone on long enough! I remain hopeful. Cheers, Colin > -- > *From:* Colin Hales via AGI > *Sent:* Saturday, 18 August 2018 3:16 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* [agi]