Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: What kind of intelligence?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Bromer
    ... intelligence? ... ... The ... simulate ... simple, ... process ... There are at least 50 known neuro transmitters and there can be 100s of
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 1, 2002
      --- In artificialintelligencegroup@y..., Troy Kelley <tdkelley1@c...>
      wrote:
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Jim Bromer
      > To: artificialintelligencegroup@y...
      > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:30 AM
      > Subject: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: What kind of
      intelligence?
      >
      >
      > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@y..., Yaroslav Benin
      <slava@m...>
      > wrote:
      > > Hello, Jim!
      > >
      > > 23 íîÿáðÿ 2002 ã. you wrote:
      > >
      > > Let me disagree with you.
      > > JB>indexing by categorization through functional associations.
      The
      > > JB> point is that I do not believe that the computer can
      simulate
      > > JB> animal experiences
      > > Why do you think so? Animal brain contains a lot of neuron, that
      > > we can reproduce in computer programm. One neuron is very
      simple,
      > > and links between them is simple, too. More detailed this
      process
      > > is described in Lyapunov's work.(Ëÿïóíîâ).
      > Actually.. the links between neurons are quite complicated.
      There are at least 50 known neuro transmitters and there can be 100s
      of branches off of each neuron. Also, some behave as threshold
      gates, while others respond to various degress of stimulation.
      Multiply that by 10 trillion neurons, and you have quite a few
      degress of freedom.
      >
      > Troy
      >
      And the brain develops multiple pathways to process information in
      certain ways. Neuroscientists have yet to understand how the brain
      works in a way sophisticated enough to be used as the basis for a
      computer program.
    • trokfest
      I am a nihilist so I dont agree with the assumption that there exists an objective truth that can be simply catalouged. I think we as humans are entranced by
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 1, 2002
        I am a nihilist so I dont agree with the assumption that there
        exists an objective truth that can be simply catalouged. I think we
        as humans are entranced by the "fantasy of humanism" and we don't
        ever realise nothing is wrong untill something like the holocaust
        (reality) happens and then we start all over again building the
        fantasy. I think that animals show more intelligence than humans.
        Just because one species is more dominant does not imply more
        intelligence. Somebody told me once that the difference between
        humans and animals is that snails dont enjoy the bueaty of the
        sunset. Isnt looking at the sunset just another self-indulgent
        fantasy that humans engage in. It seems science only maps our human
        perceptions. Such as math does not relate much to reality. 1 apple
        can equal two in weight or maybe a thousand in value. So is math
        really a form of objective truth. Math can only be proven using
        circular logic. Can somebody give an example of an objecive truth
        that does not envolve circular logic or is all logic circular?
      • Alan Grimes
        Interesting! I ve never read a posting by a pure nihilist before.... My own philosophy is an existential form of nihilsm. It begins by saying All lables are
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 2, 2002
          Interesting!
          I've never read a posting by a pure nihilist before....

          My own philosophy is an existential form of nihilsm.

          It begins by saying "All lables are false".

          And then tries to go on to define reality in terms of atoms and photons
          by means of how they are detected in a consistient manner by your
          senses.

          There is a great deal of philisophical garbage which has effectively
          stalled real development in the field for too long. =(

          Anyway, I am working on two proposals, one that I am pretty sure will
          work and another which is a bit more iffy but has a much bigger payoff.

          I guess I'd better go with the solution I am confident in then ask _IT_
          how to implement the better solution. ;)

          trokfest wrote:
          > I am a nihilist so I dont agree with the assumption that there
          > exists an objective truth that can be simply catalouged. I think we


          --
          pain (n): see Linux.
          http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/
        • bardoi
          I think therefore I am. In the sense that I am perceiving, therefore there must be something to do the perceiving. There may or may not be something to
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 6, 2002
            I think therefore I am.

            In the sense that I am perceiving, therefore there must be something
            to do the perceiving. There may or may not be something to perceive.
            I could be deluding myself.

            --- In artificialintelligencegroup@y..., trokfest <no_reply@y...>
            wrote:
            > I am a nihilist so I dont agree with the assumption that there
            > exists an objective truth that can be simply catalouged. I think
            we
            > as humans are entranced by the "fantasy of humanism" and we don't
            > ever realise nothing is wrong untill something like the holocaust
            > (reality) happens and then we start all over again building the
            > fantasy. I think that animals show more intelligence than humans.
            > Just because one species is more dominant does not imply more
            > intelligence. Somebody told me once that the difference between
            > humans and animals is that snails dont enjoy the bueaty of the
            > sunset. Isnt looking at the sunset just another self-indulgent
            > fantasy that humans engage in. It seems science only maps our
            human
            > perceptions. Such as math does not relate much to reality. 1
            apple
            > can equal two in weight or maybe a thousand in value. So is math
            > really a form of objective truth. Math can only be proven using
            > circular logic. Can somebody give an example of an objecive truth
            > that does not envolve circular logic or is all logic circular?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.