I'll respond to other points tomorrow or the day after (am currently
on a biz trip through Asia), but just one thing now... You say
> With NO money, none of either of our efforts stands a chance. With some
> realistic investment money, scanning would at minimum be cheap insurance
> that you will b
Ben,
I just LOVE your posting, because it asks exactly the right questions.
On 5/31/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think that brain scanning is an interesting and important
> technology/research direction, but I don't see why you think it is
> easier to create than AGI.
I th
Josh,
On 5/30/08, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'd get a hell of a lot better resolution with an e-beam blowing up
> nanometer-sized spots, and feeding the ejecta thru a mass spectrometer.
Yes, but all your spectrometer will see is hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. The
e-beam w
Steve, Josh, etc.
Agree this is off-topic ... it should be posted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
instead, perhaps... so I have cross-posted it there and suggest to
continue the discussion there.
Steve:
I think that brain scanning is an interesting and important
technology/research direction, but I don't
You'd get a hell of a lot better resolution with an e-beam blowing up
nanometer-sized spots, and feeding the ejecta thru a mass spectrometer.
See my talk a couple of years back at Alcor. But I would suggest that this is
*wy* off-topic for this list... uploading implications to the contrary
n
Ben, et al,
I have posted in the past as part of other postings that live forever
machines should be at once much easier to build, worth far more than an AGI,
and lead directly to an AGI. However, no one has even commented on this. If
I am right, then present efforts should shift in that direction
