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

Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Intelligence: What It Is, How It Works

Expand Messages
  • Lee Hempfling
    ... Alan, It is obvious that nothing new is going to seep in, past what is already known. So why not just give it up and let it go? Or read... Understanding
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Alan Grimes
      <alangrimes@s...> wrote:
      >
      Alan,

      It is obvious that nothing new is going to seep in, past what is
      already known. So why not just give it up and let it go?

      Or read... 'Understanding' at the site to see why you won't.

      Have a nice life.
    • Alan Grimes
      ... Any project that proposes to build a thinking android _IS_ an AI project... (unless you plan to steal someone s brain! =P ) ... That is of suprisingly
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 27, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Lee Hempfling wrote:
        > Alan,

        > Nice to see your response.
        > There are a few things you have not comprehended.

        > 1: This is NOT Artificial Intelligence.

        Any project that proposes to build a thinking android _IS_ an AI
        project... (unless you plan to steal someone's brain! =P )

        > 2: The hardware of the brain is biological.

        That is of suprisingly little relevance...

        I've read about 4/5ths of _principles of Neural Science_ so I know one
        or two things about the brain...

        > 3: The hardware of an artificial brain is not.

        Doesn't matter.

        > 4: The system of the brain is not its hardware.

        Well, the hardware is required to support the system.

        > 5: The methods of design you are familiar with are not what this has.

        I don't really need to know anything about the design to know this:

        -- If it does anything at all, it generates heat. --

        This is a fundamental law of physics...
        The ammount of heat produced is directly proportional to the ammount of
        stuff done and the efficiency of the device...

        No device is 100% efficient.

        > 6: The 80's are no different than today. AI has amounted to nothing
        > but a mass of modules upon modules, each building the complexity of
        > result without regard to the cause of it.

        In some AI paradigms, yes....

        One also has to recognise that the structure of the human brain also has
        identifyably distinct functional modules... Several hundred even!

        > 7: Not the comp.ai board, nor some other yahoo board I can't remember
        > at the moment (unusual ai type name, of some sort) both refused to
        > allow any information about the brain to be posted to their group. AI
        > has left its source and tinkered on into the twilight and led very
        > well meaning people away from the point. Both moderators specifically
        > stated the brain and how it works has nothing to do with AI.

        Then you had the misfortune of running into someone who has no business
        talking about AI at all...


        --
        "Nobody wants to say how this works. Mabye nobody knows."
        - The man page for XF86Config, One of the key config files
        behind
        the software driving the overwhealming majority of Linux desktops.

        http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/
      • Gene Foxwell
        Ok, I will, and comment as I go. [you] To know is not just to collect data. A computer does not know it has data even though it may report that it is missing
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 27, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Ok, I will, and comment as I go.

          [you]
          To know is not just to collect data. A computer does
          not know it has data even though it may report that it
          is missing some. Any brain other than human does not
          know.~; print qq~
          [/end you]

          You say this without proof or reference at this line,
          thus you cannot claim it is true, it is a belief you
          hold and thus we will take this as your first axiom.

          Lee Hampling Axiom #1: Any brain other then human does
          not know it is missing data.

          or restated (for my own purposes):

          A brain B knows that it is missing data iff (if and
          only if) it is a human brain.

          [you]
          After the initial non-zero wave gained amplitude the
          brain's evolution took it through seven distinct
          progression changes.
          [/you]

          Although I think I can see what you're getting at
          here, really this needs a formal definition. What
          wave and what exactly do you mean by it?

          [you]
          In stage 7 short-term memory grew to become the
          largest part of the physical make up of the brain as
          much longer pathways were needed to process and retain
          higher amplitude impulses when processing was much
          faster than long-term. Long-term has remained rather
          stable since stage 5 . In stage 7 the major change
          provided by evolution is the connection of the end of
          the short-term pathway to the beginning of the
          short-term pathway through a feedback return loop that
          was both long enough in depth of retention to allow a
          set up of redundancy as default and the change in the
          input to long-term memory.
          [/you]

          Ok, so how does this insure axiom #1 ??? Basically
          why exactly does that system above after the proccess
          know when it is missing data and what changes in
          non-humans (say dolphins) ?

          Or, is the above supposed to be an algorithmn to
          devolp the nessary structure for any brain?


          [you]
          Understanding the degree of effect one level of
          processing has on subsequent levels of processing
          requires understanding exponential processing: In the
          upcoming paper 'On The States Of Charge, Gravity and
          The Observable Exponential Universe' by the author the
          concept of exponential events is detailed describing
          the observed multiplicative and additive inverse
          conditions which requires completion of equality or
          the reached state of additive or multiplcative
          identity.
          [/you]

          You have not defined the term exponential event,nor is
          thier enough data for me to able to pin down precisly
          what you mean here. Are you claiming that for an
          event a that a^k or l*a (where k,l are integer's I
          presume, although I suppose it need not be) is the
          identity? Is this supposed to form a Ring or Field?

          [you]
          Humans are humans because we have a 'hard-wired' loop
          at the fullest extent of the short-term memory which
          forces all memories in short-term to loop back to the
          origin of processing not allowed in the extended non
          closed looped long-term memory.
          [/you]

          Once again you offer no proof of this (this is
          becomming less and less like science and more and more
          like reading a bad philosophical essay) and so I will
          take it as axiom #2 and axiom #3.

          Axiom #2: For every human brain, thier exists a loop L
          that has been maximally hard-wired at the short-term
          memory such that all memories in the short-term memory
          loop back to origin.

          Axiom #3: If a memory is not in the short term memory
          it cannot loop back to origin.

          Ok, so I hate all these useless axioms and assumptions
          of yours already, so I will combine them:

          Proposition: A memory M is in the short term memory
          iff it loops back to origin.

          And so at this point I stop reading. I've had to pick
          apart far too much to get at your assumptions which
          you state as truths without proofs or reference to
          experiments where this has been seen. The combining
          your axioms we see that thier must be some structure
          in which this loop exists - I can assume that this is
          a connected directed graph - but that is not nessarily
          true.


          It makes a good article as from a philosophical point
          of view, but it needs a great deal of work before any
          of what you say could possibly be confirmed or denied
          and so I have stopped commenting.

          --- Lee Hempfling <iggit@...> wrote:
          > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com,
          > Alan Grimes
          > <alangrimes@s...> wrote:
          > >
          > Alan,
          >
          > It is obvious that nothing new is going to seep in,
          > past what is
          > already known. So why not just give it up and let it
          > go?
          >
          > Or read... 'Understanding' at the site to see why
          > you won't.
          >
          > Have a nice life.
          >
          >


          =====
          share and enjoy

          wizard of frozzbozz

          this email is product of the frozzbozz magic email company.

          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
          http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
        • Lee Hempfling
          ... wrote: Mind if I quote you?
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 27, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Gene Foxwell
            <wizard_of_frozzbozz@y...> wrote:

            Mind if I quote you?
          • Gene Foxwell
            ??? Where ??? and what for ??? If you have rebuttals to what I have to say I d like to hear them, but yes you may quote me. ... ===== share and enjoy wizard
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 27, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ??? Where ??? and what for ??? If you have rebuttals
              to what I have to say I'd like to hear them, but yes
              you may quote me.

              --- Lee Hempfling <iggit@...> wrote:
              > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com,
              > Gene Foxwell
              > <wizard_of_frozzbozz@y...> wrote:
              >
              > Mind if I quote you?
              >
              >


              =====
              share and enjoy

              wizard of frozzbozz

              this email is product of the frozzbozz magic email company.

              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
              http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
            • Todd
              ... wrote: ... Sorry to hear this. It happens to he best of us. -Todd
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Alan Grimes
                <alangrimes@s...> wrote:
                .......
                > --
                > Testimonial: I wasted 2,000 hours using Linux.

                Sorry to hear this. It happens to he best of us.

                -Todd
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.