Eugen> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:03:46AM -0400, Eric Baum wrote:
>> I did a computation along these lines (in What is Thought?, ch 2)
>> and, came up with a vaguely similar figure. But, a few comments:
Eugen> Um, you do realize that the genome is not a noticeable source
Eugen> of complexity in t
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 09:03:46AM -0400, Eric Baum wrote:
>
> I did a computation along these lines (in What is Thought?, ch 2)
> and, came up with a vaguely similar figure. But, a few comments:
Um, you do realize that the genome is not a noticeable source
of complexity in the human primate, rig
I did a computation along these lines (in What is Thought?, ch 2)
and, came up with a vaguely similar figure. But, a few comments:
(1) You need to account for control information. I simply doubled
my protein coding estimate, but of course this could be off.
(2) OTOH, its not clear how important mo
On Thursday 15 March 2007 02:16, Kevin Peterson wrote:
> Hmm...was the 1MB just a blue sky guess, or did you follow a similar
> chain of reasoning?
Vaguely similar, but including some intuitions about software as well.
Josh
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To un
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:16:19AM -0700, Kevin Peterson wrote:
> Some numbers that we know without a doubt have bearing on an upper bound.
>
> Genome: 3 billion base pairs. 2 bits/pair, 750MB (somehow the human
> genome project quotes 1byte / basepair, which is clearly wrong)
>
> Protein coding
On 3/14/07, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll go out on a limb and conjecture that an AI can be fully described in less
than a megabyte of the appropriate formalism. (Allow 10 MB if you want to
implement the formalism in existing low-level languages.)
Some numbers that we kno
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:30, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> The reason Drexler proposed scaling down the Difference Engine is not
> because he considered them practical, but because they're easy to analyze.
But more to the point to put a LOWER bound on computational capacity of
nanosystems.
> I'm no
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:43:01PM -0500, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
> Besides writing books, Kurzweil builds systems that work.
No arguing with that (though his system-building seems to
be all in the past, and self-promotion very much in the
present), but he doesn't do AI that works and neithe
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 08:05, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> You might find the authors have a bit more credibility than
> Moravec, and especially such a notorious luminary like Kurzweil
> http://www.kurzweiltech.com/aboutray.html
Besides writing books, Kurzweil builds systems that work.
> I'm not actu
