Hi...
About OCP and Eliezer ...
This is another topic that was bound to come up!
OpenCogPrime is the design and approach of myself and a number of my
colleagues ... but it's not Eliezer's design or approach
Eliezer and I have many points of agreement, many points of disagreement,
and many
Richard Loosemore is at it again, acting as if he knows so much more about
complex system issues than most everybody else on this list, by dumping on
Novamente and OpenCog because they do have his RL view complex system
issues.
But what is the evidence that Richard, in fact, know more than the
Priceless! :-)
Just how far does someone have to go on this list - in the way of
sending gratuitous torrents of personal abuse - before the list
moderators at least rebuke them, if not ban them outright?
Richard Loosemore
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard Loosemore is at it again, acting
David Hart wrote:
On 8/2/08, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus: in my paper there is a quote from a book in which Conway's
efforts were described, and it is transparently clear from this
quote that the method Conway used was random search:
David Hart wrote:
On 8/2/08, *Richard Loosemore* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus: in my paper there is a quote from a book in which Conway's
efforts were described, and it is transparently clear from this
quote that the method Conway used was random search:
Joel Pitt wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing quite so pathetic as someone who starts their comment with
a word like Bull, and then proceeds to spout falsehoods.
Thus: in my paper there is a quote from a book in which Conway's
Richard,
I don't think any person on this list has been as insulting of the ideas of
others as much you. You routinely describe other people's ideas as
rubbish or in similarly contemptuous terms, often with no clear
justification, and often when those you insult have not been previously
Ed, do you not remember making this accusation once before, and asking
for people to step forward to support you? On that occasion you had a
sum total of ZERO people come forward with evidence or support for your
accusations, and on the other hand you did get some people who said that
I
Well, there may have been a lot of trial and error in figuring out which
local, binary 2D CA rule would give rise to complex patterns (though I feel
pretty confident it was clever-intuition-guided trial and error, not true
random search...), but
1) the idea to look at that particular class of
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Well, there may have been a lot of trial and error in figuring out which
local, binary 2D CA rule would give rise to complex patterns (though I
feel pretty confident it was clever-intuition-guided trial and error,
not true random search...), but
1) the idea to look at
I don't quiet agree. It is well known that cellular automata evolve in a few
somehow precise type of behaviors, one of which is precisely the type found
by John Conway. I don't think he designed the Game of Life, or even if he
did I wouldn't say so simply because there is a whole big class of CA
I have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter.
I have posted such in the past on the list and had seriously been considering
doing so again (and your e-mail inspired me to do so). Ed is abusive, plain
and simple. There was no reason for this last thread that he started
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impressions on this topic are based on dim memories of reading
interviews with Conway on the subject, many years ago. They could be
incorrect in some parts or nuances, and are not something I'm at all
strongly
I would be perfectly happy if you simply finished our discussions with a
statement that your scientific intuition tells you that the problem is not
as serious as I think. You have sometimes done this, and I have gracefully
subsided.
OK. My scientific intuition tells me that the complex
Hector
you say
In other words, there is nothing to do about AI or AGI but to look at the
systems we have already around. I do think that any of those simple systems
such as CA can achieve AGI of the kind we expect without having to do
anything else! From my point of view it is just a
I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's
(which are frequently full of language like fools, rubbish and so forth
...).
Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too.
I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if
that is
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hector
you say
In other words, there is nothing to do about AI or AGI but to look at the
systems we have already around. I do think that any of those simple systems
such as CA can achieve AGI of the kind we expect
I'm relatively new here, as I've only been reading for a couple of
months, and I am hesitant to speak because the level of venom directed
at others seems to be very high.
I'd like it better if the hostility was toned down a lot.
My personal opinion is that if as much energy was devoted to
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of
Richard's (which are frequently full of language like fools,
rubbish and so forth ...).
I am sorry: I am not going to stand by and let you make accusations
without substantiating them.
Find evidence for
19 matches
Mail list logo
