X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: fbb9d,2c35872673caeccf X-Google-Attributes: gidfbb9d,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-12 07:53:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!lios!news.gweep.ca!not-for-mail From: "Joaquim G�ndara" Newsgroups: rec.arts.ascii Subject: Re: [DIS] Brain-Mind Diagram for AI Instantiate Module Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:53:57 +0000 (UTC) Organization: rec.arts.ascii moderation hosted by Gweep Systems Lines: 31 Sender: robomod@lios.aq2.gweep.ca Approved: rec-arts-ascii-moderator@gweep.ca Message-ID: References: <3d06b94f@news.victoria.tc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost X-Trace: lios.aq2.gweep.ca 1023893637 10242 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2002 14:53:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@lios.aq2.gweep.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:53:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:55:00 +0200 X-Orig-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.242.128.42 X-Orig-X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1023893633 4896204 213.242.128.42 (16 [102694]) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Gweep-Cleanmime: quoted=45% Xref: archiver1.google.com rec.arts.ascii:61 "Arthur T. Murray" skrev i meddelandet news:3d06b94f@news.victoria.tc.ca > "Joaquim G�ndara" wrote on Wed, 12 Jun 2002: > > No luck in SL4, so try try again in rec.arts.ascii? :) > http://sysopmind.com/archive-sl4/0205/0334.html (q.v.) Guess I couldn't get past the kookiness. > > I have to say that I'm with the rest of them. > > Can you identify any "causal fallacies" in the Theory of Mind? > http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html "Brain-Mind: Know Thyself!" "Suitable for introduction to the AI theory"? Not very pedagogical, I'm afraid; at least not for non-native English speakers. I can't understand half of that, but the bits that I do understand seem rather obvious and outdated... :\ > > I found your page before you announced the singularity in SL4, > > and it seemed mostly like GOFAI ("good ol' fashioned AI"). > > http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mind4th.html = GOFAI = Singularity? Is the seed AI supposed to be able to comprehend that code? I'm sorry, but I had expected code where every single piece could be understood by a programmer at a glance, but where the overall architectural design isn't directly obvious. This seems like the opposite. I can kind of see what is being implemented, but I don't understand the implementation. -jg