Hi Russel,
1) Strong CT/Deutch...will look it up...Sounds like one of the
conflations in operation: confusing the natural world with some kind of
computer running rules, rather than something natural merely behaving
rule-ly to an observing scientist.
2) Re: angry popperians...the role of
On 15 Jun 2011, at 18:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/15/2011 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Doesn't this objection only apply to attempts to construct an AI
with
human-equivalent intelligence? As a counter example I'm thinking
here
of Ben Goertzel's OpenCog, an attempt at artificial general
Hi Benjayk,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
We just cannot do artificial intelligence in a provable manner. We
need chance, or luck. Even if we get some intelligent machine, we
will
not know-it-for sure (perhaps just believe it correctly).
But this is a quite weak statement, isn't it? It just
On 15 Jun 2011, at 21:20, benjayk wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed)
universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps
even
maximally conscious.
What could maximally conscious mean? My intuition says
On 6/16/2011 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Concerning the learning competence of a machine, I measure it by the
classes of computable functions that the machine is able to identify
from finite samples of input-outputs. This leads to the computational
learning theory or inductive inference
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So we agree violently on this, to borrow an expression to Russell (I
think).
To be fair, Brent used this expression when agreeing with me on
something. But it is a good one!
Cheers
--
6 matches
Mail list logo
