Richard,
I will get back to you on this. There's a lot of e-mail coming in, and I
have to digest what you've said here. This is important.
Richard Loosemore wrote:
John Scanlon wrote:
Richard, could you describe your algorithms in a general way (I'm not
asking for any proprietary inform
Richard> Every step of the following argument begs questions and lacks
Richard> force:
If you want a more complete argument, read the book.
One of the reasons for writing a book is not to have to engage in
arguments piecemeal.
Eric
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/em
Eric Baum wrote:
> However, the argument that it is not going to be possible, which
> I claim is at the least plausible, is (very briefly) the following:
> (1) understanding comes from Occam code, very concise code that
> solves a bunch of naturally presented problems (and likely, only from
> that)
Eric Baum wrote:
Richard> But ... I find it deeply _implausible_ that there is no
Richard> better way to design a mind than through the computational
Richard> effort implicit in evolution.
Richard> In particular, can you summarize how your plausible arguments
Richard> address the idea that we ha
> In Novamente, the synthesis of probabilistic logical inference and
> probabilistic evolutionary learning is to be used to carry out all of
> the above kinds of learning you mention, and more
Well, then your architecture would be monolithic and not modular. I think
it's a good choice to br
On 11/10/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. Ben raised the issue of learning. I think we should divide learning> > into 3 parts:
> >> >(1) linguistic eg grammar> >(2) semantic / concepts> >(3) generic / factual.> > This leaves out a lot, for instance procedure learni
2. Ben raised the issue of learning. I think we should divide learning
into 3 parts:
(1) linguistic eg grammar
(2) semantic / concepts
(3) generic / factual.
This leaves out a lot, for instance procedure learning and
metalearning... and also perceptual learning (e.g. object recognit
This is an interesting thread, I'll add some comments:
1. For KR purposes, I think first order predicate logic is a good choice. Geniform 2.0 can be expressed in FOL entirely. ANN is simply not in a state advanced enough to represent complex knowledge (eg things that are close to NL). I als
Richard> But ... I find it deeply _implausible_ that there is no
Richard> better way to design a mind than through the computational
Richard> effort implicit in evolution.
Richard> In particular, can you summarize how your plausible arguments
Richard> address the idea that we have internal access
Eric Baum wrote:
John> Fully decoding the human genome is almost impossible. Not only
John> is there the problem of protein folding, which I think even
John> supercomputers can't fully solve, but the purpose for the
John> structure of each protein depends on interaction with the
John> incredibl
Sorry, I don't have an electronic copy. (MIT Press did all the copy
editing etc on paper.)
Amazon is the best bet. Its available in paper, reasonably priced :^)
Eric Baum
http://whatisthought.com
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your optio
Eric,
Wow, I'm very impressed by the positive reviews from people with these
credentials. Now I have to read your book. Should I just order it from
Amazon, or could you find it in the goodness of your heart to send me an
electronic copy? I don't mind paying for it if that's a problem.
Joh
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Protein folding is hard. We can't even plug in a simple formula like H2O and
compute physical properties like density or melting point.
This seems to be a rapidly improving area:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/message/36865
--
Brian Atkins
Singularity
Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matt wrote:
>Changing one bit of the key or plaintext affects every bit of the cipherte=
xt.
>That is simply not true of most encryptions. For example, Enigma.=20
Matt:
Enigma is laughably weak compared to modern encryption, such as AES, RSA, S=
HA-256, ECC,
Protein folding is hard. We can't even plug in a simple formula like H2O and
compute physical properties like density or melting point.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message
From: John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matt wrote:
>Changing one bit of the key or plaintext affects every bit of the ciphertext.
>That is simply not true of most encryptions. For example, Enigma.
Enigma is laughably weak compared to modern encryption, such as AES, RSA,
SHA-256, ECC, etc. Enigm
John> Fully decoding the human genome is almost impossible. Not only
John> is there the problem of protein folding, which I think even
John> supercomputers can't fully solve, but the purpose for the
John> structure of each protein depends on interaction with the
John> incredibly complex molecular
Matt wrote:
Changing one bit of the key or plaintext affects every bit of the ciphertext.
That is simply not true of most encryptions. For example, Enigma.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com
18 matches
Mail list logo
