To all,
I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as follows,
and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc.
Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different
orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in
many cases, so
Hi Steve
I am not an expert so correct me if I am wrong. As I see it every day
logical arguments (and rationality?) are based on standard classical logic
(or something very similar). Yet I am (sadly) not aware of a convincing
argument that this logic is the one to accept as the right choice. You m
> From: Trent Waddington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain. For
> example, a scientist may decide that a mouse does not feel pain when it
> is stuck in the eye with
2008/11/18 Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as follows,
> and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc.
This all sounds peachy in principle, but I expect it would exclude
virtually everyone except perhaps a few of the mos
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think most people have at least a few beliefs which cannot be strictly
> justified rationally
You would think that. :)
Trent
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/arc
Colin,
May I suggest if you want clarity you dispense with eccentric philosophical
terms like p-consciousness (phenomenal consciousness?) The phantom limb case
you bring up is interesting but first I have to understand what you're talking
about. Would you mind sticking to simple, basic (and sc
I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain.
Wow! You are one sick puppy, dude. Personally, you have just hit my "Do
not bother debating with" list.
You can "decide" anything you like -- but that doesn't make it true.
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL
First words to come from the brand new AGI?
Hello World
or
Gotta paper clip?
What's the meaning of life?
Am I really conscious?
Where am I?
I come from a dysfunctional family.
---
agi
Archives: https:/
> 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance
> to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the
> directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this
> test. This statement would be included on the license.
>
>
Hmmm... don't I
Colin Hales wrote:
Mike Tintner wrote:
Colin:Qualia generation has been highly localised into specific
regions in *cranial *brain material already. Qualia are not in the
periphery. Qualia are not in the spinal CNS, Qualia are not in the
cranial periphery eg eyes or lips
Colin,
This is to a
Steve Richfield wrote:
To all,
I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as
follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc.
Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different
orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
>
> I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be able
> to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers.
>
Yup. That's how they pass lie detector tests as well.
They sincerely believe the garbage they spread around.
Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Harry Chesley wrote:
>> Richard Loosemore wrote:
>>> I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness
>>> the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it
>>> can be found at:
>>>
>>> http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_con
Trent Waddington wrote:
> As I believe the "is that conciousness?" debate could go on forever,
> I think I should make an effort here to save this thread.
>
> Setting aside the objections of vegetarians and animal lovers, many
> hard nosed scientists decided long ago that jamming things into the
>
My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details, why
do some "feel" different than others -- shouldn't they all be separate
but equal? "Red" is relatively neutral, while "searing hot" is not. Part
of that is certainly lower brain function, below the level of
consciousness, but t
Trent Waddington wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Colin Hales
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to dispel all such delusion in this place so that neurally inspired
AGI gets discussed accurately, even if your intent is to "explain
P-consciousness away"... know exactly what you are exp
.. interesting if true ..
http://www.medindia.net/news/Key-to-Learning-and-Memory-Continuous-Brain-Cell-Generation-41297-1.htm
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion
Mark Waser wrote:
>> My problem is if qualia are atomic, with no differentiable details,
>> why do some "feel" different than others -- shouldn't they all be
>> separate but equal? "Red" is relatively neutral, while "searing
>> hot" is not. Part of that is certainly lower brain function, below
>> t
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I mean that people are free to decide if others feel pain.
>
> Wow! You are one sick puppy, dude. Personally, you have
> just hit my "Do not bother debating with" list.
>
> You can "decide" anything you like -- but that
> doesn't
Harry Chesley wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Harry Chesley wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
I completed the first draft of a technical paper on consciousness
the other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and it
can be found at:
http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_c
Martin,
On 11/18/08, martin biehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a
> precise counterexample, but I think you get my point.
HERE is the crux of my argument, as other forms of logic fall short of being
adequate to run a world with.
This sounds an awful lot like the Hegelian dialectical method...
ben g
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Steve Richfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Martin,
>
> On 11/18/08, martin biehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a
>> preci
Aren't you the one who decided that autobliss feels pain? Or did you
decide that it doesn't?
Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no volition. By what
definitions does it feel pain?
On the other hand, by what definitions do people not feel pain (other than
by some fictitiou
Bob,
On 11/18/08, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as
> follows,
> > and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc.
>
>
> This all sounds peachy in principle, but I ex
Ben,
On 11/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance
>> to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the
>> directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this
>> test. Th
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no
> volition. By what definitions does it feel pain?
Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel pain. My
definition of pain is negative reinforcement i
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Autobliss has no grounding, no internal feedback, and no
> > volition. By what definitions does it feel pain?
>
> Now you are making up new rules to decide
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clearly, this can be done, and has largely been done already ... though
> cutting and pasting or summarizing the relevant literature in emails would
> not a productive use of time
Apparently, it was Einstein who said that i
Richard and Bill,
On 11/18/08, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> > I see how this would work: crazy people never tell lies, so you'd be
> able
> > to nail 'em when they gave the wrong answers.
>
Yup. That's how they pass lie detector
I attended a two day seminar on brain science at MIT about six years ago in
which one of the papers was about neurognesis in the hippocampus. The
speaker said he though neurogenisis was necessary in the hippocampus because
hippocampus cells tend to die much more rapidly than most cells, and thus
n
Could we please stick to discussion of AGI?
-Ben
From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 10:39 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] My prospective plan to neutralize AGI and other dangerous
technologies...
Richard and Bill,
On 11/18
Just to clarify, I'm not really interested in whether machines feel pain. I am
just trying to point out the contradictions in Mark's sweeping generalizations
about the treatment of intelligent machines. But to be fair, such criticism is
unwarented. Mark is arguing about ethics. Everyone has ethi
Steve, what is the purpose of your political litmus test? If you are trying to
assemble a team of seed-AI programmers with the "correct" ethics, forget it.
Seed AI is a myth.
http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi2.html (section 2).
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Steve Richfie
Richard,
I re-read your paper and I'm afraid I really don't grok why you think it
solves Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness...
It really seems to me like what you're suggesting is a "cognitive correlate
of consciousness", to morph the common phrase "neural correlate of
consciousness" ...
Yo
Now you are making up new rules to decide that autobliss doesn't feel
pain. My definition of pain is negative reinforcement in a system that
learns. There is no other requirement.
I made up no rules. I merely asked a question. You are the one who makes a
definition like this and then says th
>> I am just trying to point out the contradictions in Mark's sweeping
>> generalizations about the treatment of intelligent machines
Huh? That's what you're trying to do? Normally people do that by pointing to
two different statements and arguing that they contradict each other. Not by
crea
>> Seed AI is a myth.
Ah. Now I get it. You are on this list solely to try to slow down progress as
much as possible . . . . (sorry that I've been so slow to realize this)
add-rule kill-file "Matt Mahoney"
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent:
Matt and Mark,
I think you both missed my point, but in different ways, namely, that there
is a LOT of traffic here on this forum over a problem that appears easy to
resolve once and for all time, and further, that the solution may work for
much more important worldwide social problems.
Continuin
38 matches
Mail list logo
