On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point
On 8/11/2012 11:28 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55
On 12.08.2012 08:53 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:28:42AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Okay. Let us take then a self-driving car. Is it intelligent?
Evgenii
Could be. A self-driving car that navigates a simple environment with
beacons and constrained tracks
On 12.08.2012 08:39 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/11/2012 11:28 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.08.2012 07:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:48:06AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Please look at self-driving cars from the Standford course on AI:
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/12/self-driving-cars.html
The question however, how you define intelligence so that to make
such a self-driving car more
On 12.08.2012 09:45 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:48:06AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Please look at self-driving cars from the Standford course on AI:
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/12/self-driving-cars.html
The question however, how you define intelligence so
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:05:20AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
However, without such a measure, a statement that life is mostly
unintelligent is ill-defined.
Informal perhaps, but hardly ill-defined. Much the same could be said
about the concept life.
In general, if we assume inexorable
On 12.08.2012 11:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is
On 12.08.2012 11:38 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:05:20AM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
However, without such a measure, a statement that life is mostly
unintelligent is ill-defined.
Informal perhaps, but hardly ill-defined. Much the same could be said
about
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 03:55:15PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This is a question to Russell, as he has made a statement that life
need not be intelligent. This was exactly my question what
intelligent in this respect would mean.
I was not using it in a technical sense, but just the
On 8/12/2012 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 10:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
artitificial intelligence,
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason need not
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
On 8/12/2012 1:18 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life
Hi Russell Standish
I like this list I have just joined because of the excellent thinkers here,
who are already changing my view of what computers can do in AI.
The differences in our interpretations of AI and the possibility of computers
simulating life
is due to our different interpretations
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent.
The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of
artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an
intelligent species, a
19 matches
Mail list logo
