From: Matt Paul (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 30 2009 - 17:52:12 MST
It isn't a new variable. It was always there. It isn't nonexistent, we
each experience it every single day. You have an imagination don't
you? We all do. I'm saying it's a component of human intelligence.
Maybe it's possible to model it completely in code, but how? What is
it? I can approach it with things like creating all possible
combinations of everything I know, etc. But is this really all it is?
My hunch is it's more complex than that. Maybe it's just an algorithm
of some sort? Maybe it's something else?
You look for it because it is a necessay component to build the AI.
Maybe the better question I should have asked in the beginning is:
what is imagination?
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:59 PM, mindbound <email@example.com> wrote:
> The point, as far as my understanding goes, is: Why assume that in
> system exists factor X, which is unfathomable and transcendent, a
> factor which asks for a major revision of the system and which
> quite probably is balancing on the margin of mysticism, IF WE ARE
> ALREADY MAKING QUITE FINE PROGRESS with the explanation of the
> system's workings WITHOUT THAT FACTOR?
> I can understand introduction of new variables when it is needed, but
> I do not see here this situation. If you insist there is something in
> the consciousness we cannot explain with our current instrumentarium,
> maybe you should be more precise in your claims and provide details
> about that something.
> In my opinion, there just is no need for revisiting the entire
> method as
> long as it is working well.
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 04:36:06PM -0600, Matt Paul wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:35 PM, "John K Clark" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <email@example.com> said:
>>>> You are stuck on this damn soul thing. It's aggravating.
>>> The truth can be painful.
>>>> I don't know why you insist that everyone is stuck in some sort of
>>>> medival way of thinking.
>>> You're talking about something that the scientific method cannot
>>> that is nevertheless of enormous importance, just like the soul.
>> Why do you assume that the scientific method cannot detect it just
>> because it hasn't so far. I'm not talking about something immortal
>> like the soul you speak of. It probably isn't unique either, but you
>> can't duplicate it until you find it. Until you find it so you can
>> duplicate it, you will not be duplicating human intelligence.
>> ** ACCEPT: CRM114 PASS osb unique microgroom Matcher **CLASSIFY
>> succeeds; success probability: 1.0000 pR: 29.9166
>> Best match to file #0 (nonspam.css) prob: 1.0000 pR: 29.9166 Total
>> features in input file: 3392
>> #0 (nonspam.css): features: 60227, hits: 33189, prob: 1.00e+00, pR:
>> 29.92#1 (spam.css): features: 33026, hits: 29536, prob: 1.21e-30,
>> pR: -29.92
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:01:15 MDT