Re: [agi] AGI and Deity

On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Charles D Hixson wrote: Samantha Atkins wrote: On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 6:59 AM, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Dawkins trivializes religion from his comfortable first world

Re: [agi] AGI and Deity

On Dec 26, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Stan Nilsen wrote: Samantha Atkins wrote: In what way? The limits of human probability computation to form accurate opinions are rather well documented. Why wouldn't a mind that could compute millions of times more quickly and with far greater accuracy b

Re: [agi] OpenCog

Mike Dougherty wrote: On Dec 28, 2007 1:55 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Dougherty wrote: On Dec 28, 2007 8:28 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, that would be a serious miusunderstanding of the framework and development environment that I am bui

RE: [agi] AGI and Deity

> From: Samantha Atkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:34 AM, John G. Rose wrote: > > > > Well I shouldn't berate the poor dude... The subject of rationality is > > pertinent though as the way that humans deal with unknown involves > > irrationality especially in relation to d

Re: [agi] AGI and Deity

Greetings Samantha, I'll not bother with detailed explanations since they are easily dismissed with a hand wave and categorization of irrelevant. For anyone who might be interested in the question of: Why wouldn't a super intelligence be better able to explain the aspects of reality? (assumi

[agi] What's the diff. between a simulation and a copy?

This is a question I have barely thought about at all - but since AI and science build so many simulations of parts of the world, and philosophers like Bostrom talk conceptually so much about similar simulations - it seems worth thinking about. What's the difference between a computer simulati

Re: [agi] OpenCog

On 12/28/07, Jean-Paul Van Belle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMHO more important than working towards contributing clean code would be to *publish the (required) interfaces for the modules as well as give standards for/details on the knowledge representation format*. I am sure that you have those