On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:31 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To use Thorton's example, he demontrated that a "checkerboard" pattern can
> be learned using logic easily, but it will drive a NN learner crazy.
Note that neural networks are a broad subject and don't only include
pe
(1) STUDY FINDS THAT SLEEP SELECTIVELY PRESERVES EMOTIONAL MEMORIES
http://www.physorg.com/news137908693.html
(2) BIG-BRAINED ANIMALS [BIRDS] EVOLVE FASTER
http://www.physorg.com/news138003096.html
(3) BRAIN RULES
Here's a guy selling a book/DVD ("Brain Rules") about how to improve your
mental p
On 8/15/08, rick the ponderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/13/08, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:14 AM, rick the ponderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for replying YKY
>> > Is the logic learning you are talking about inductive logi
On 8/13/08, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:14 AM, rick the ponderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for replying YKY
> > Is the logic learning you are talking about inductive logic programming.
> If
> > so, isn't ilp basically a search through the sp
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The paradox seems trivial, of course. I generally agree with your
> analysis (describing how we consider the sentence, take into account
> its context, and so on. But the big surprise to logicians was that the
> paradox is n
> I don't think the problems of a self-referential paradox is
> significantly more difficult than the problems of general reference.
> Not only are there implicit boundaries, some of which have to be
> changed in an instant as the conversation develops, there are also
> multiple levels of generaliz
Our ability to think about abstractions and extrapolations off of
abstractions comes because we are able to create game boundaries
around the systems that we think about. So yes you can talk about
infinite resources and compare it to the domain of the lambda
calculus, but this kind of thinking is
That made more sense to me. Responses follow.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But, I am looking for a system that "is" me.
>
> You, like everyone else's me, has it's limitations.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, I am looking for a system that "is" me.
You, like everyone else's me, has it's limitations. So there is a
difference between the potential of the system and the actual system.
This point of stressing potentiality rath
Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.02/warwick.html
An interesting perspective. Instead of brain tissue controlling a machine, we
have a brain wanting to be controlled by a machine.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.02/warwick.html
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&i
2008/8/15 Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The training issue is a real one, but presumably over time electronics that
> would be part of these wetware/hardware combination brains could be
> developed to train the wetware/hardware machines --- under the control
> guidance of external systems at the
12 matches
Mail list logo