Hi Colin,
I'm not entirely sure that computers can implement consciousness. But
I don't find your arguments sway me one way or the other. A brief
reply follows.
2008/10/4 Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Next empirical fact:
(v) When you create a turing-COMP substrate the interface with space
Basically, you are saying that there is some unknown physics mojo
going on. The mystery of mind looks as mysterious as mystery of
physics, therefore it requires mystery of physics and can derive
further mysteriousness from it, becoming inherently mysterious. It's
bad, bad non-science.
--
Hi Colin,
Many thanks for detailed reply. You seem to be taking a long-winding
philosophical route to asserting that intelligence depends on consciousness,
in the sense of what I would call a sensory movie of the world - vision +
sound/smell/taste etc.
I absolutely agree with that basic
Matthias: I think it is extremely important, that we give an AGI no bias
about
space and time as we seem to have.
Well, I ( possibly Ben) have been talking about an entity that is in many
places at once - not in NO place. I have no idea how you would swing that -
other than what we already
Mike Tintner wrote:
Matthias: I think it is extremely important, that we give an AGI no bias
about
space and time as we seem to have.
Well, I ( possibly Ben) have been talking about an entity that is in
many places at once - not in NO place. I have no idea how you would
swing that - other
From my points 1. and 2. it should be clear that I was not talking about a
distributed AGI which is in NO place. The AGI you mean consists of several
parts which are in different places. But this is already the case with the
human body. The only difference is, that the parts of the distributed AGI
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- On Fri, 10/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to misunderstand the notion of a Global Brain, see
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GBRAIFAQ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain
You are right.
Stan wrote:
Seems hard to imagine information processing without identity.
Intelligence is about invoking methods. Methods are created because
they are expected to create a result. The result is the value - the
value that allows them to be selected from many possible choices.
Identity can
Matthias,
First, I see both a human body-brain and a distributed entity, such as a
computer network, as *physically integrated* units, with a sense of their
physical integrity. The fascinating thought, (perhaps unrealistic) for me
was of being able to physically look at a scene or scenes,
Hi Will,
It's not an easy thing to fully internalise the implications of quantum
degeneracy. I find physicists and chemists have no trouble accepting it,
but in the disciplines above that various levels of mental brick walls
are in place. Unfortunately physicists and chemists aren't usually
Original Message -
From: Colin Hales
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] COMP = f
...
You are exactly right: humans don't encounter the world directly (naive
realism). Nor are we entirely operating from a cartoon visual
The argument seems wrong to me intuitively, but I'm hard-put to argue
against it because the terms are so unclearly defined ... for instance I
don't really know what you mean by a visual scene ...
I can understand that to create a form of this argument worthy of being
carefully debated, would be
--- On Sat, 10/4/08, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I can just paint a mental picture of the job the brain has to do.
Imagine this:
You have no phenomenal consciousness at all. Your internal life is of a
dreamless sleep.
Except ... for a new perceptual mode called Wision.
Looming
Matt:The problem you describe is to reconstruct this image given the highly
filtered and compressed signals that make it through your visual perceptual
system, like when an artist paints a scene from memory. Are you saying that
this process requires a consciousness because it is otherwise not
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Matt:The problem you describe is to reconstruct this image given the highly
filtered and compressed signals that make it through your visual perceptual
system, like when an artist paints a scene from memory. Are you saying
Ben,
Thanks for reply. I'm a bit lost though. How does this formula take into
account the different pixel configurations of different objects? (I would have
thought we can forget about the time of display and just concentrate on the
configurations of points/colours, but no doubt I may be
Ben Goertzel wrote:
No, the mainstream method of extracting knowledge from text (other
than manually) is to ignore word order. In artificial languages,
you have to parse a sentence before you can understand it. In
natural language, you have to understand the sentence before
Ok, at a single point in time on a 600x400 screen, if one is using 24-bit
color (usually called true color) then the number of possible images is
2^(600x400x24)
which is, roughly, 10 with a couple million zeros after it ... way bigger
than a googol, way way smaller than a googolplex ;-)
This is
Dr. Heger,
Point #3 is brilliantly stated. I couldn't have expressed it better. And
I know this because I've been trying to do so, in slightly broader terms,
for months on this list. Insofar as providing an AGI with a human-biased
sense of space and time is required to create a human-like AGI
19 matches
Mail list logo
