Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #7625 > unrolled thread

Re: LISP AI folklore

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-22 12:31 -0700
    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-23 11:17 +0300
      Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-23 10:50 -0700
        Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-24 09:06 +0300
          Re: LISP AI folklore Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-10-24 12:01 +0200
            Re: LISP AI folklore Dr J R Stockton <reply1143@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-25 19:36 +0100
          Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-24 17:16 +0000
          Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-24 11:54 -0700
            Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-25 05:12 +0300
              Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-25 11:44 -0700
                Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-26 15:13 +0300
                  Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-26 11:12 -0700
                    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-27 15:52 +0300
                      Re: LISP AI folklore "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-10-27 15:08 +0200
                        Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-27 16:58 +0300
                          Re: LISP AI folklore "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-10-27 16:16 +0200
                          Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-27 16:17 +0000
                          Re: LISP AI folklore Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-10-27 17:31 +0100
                          Re: LISP AI folklore "Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-27 18:42 +0100
                            Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-27 12:39 -0700
                              Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 00:39 +0300
                                Re: LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-27 15:47 -0700
                                  Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 06:51 +0300
                                    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 06:56 +0300
                                      Re: LISP AI folklore Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-10-28 14:54 +0200
                                        Re: LISP AI folklore John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-28 16:02 +0100
                                    Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-29 15:39 +0000
                                Re: LISP AI folklore Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2011-11-11 10:34 +0100
                                  Re: LISP AI folklore Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 11:45 -0800
                          Re: LISP AI folklore Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2011-11-11 10:30 +0100
                  Re: LISP AI folklore BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-10-26 11:21 -0700
                    Re: LISP AI folklore vandys@vsta.org - 2011-10-26 20:11 +0000
                      Re: LISP AI folklore "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 07:42 +1100
                      Re: LISP AI folklore BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-10-27 22:47 -0700
                        Re: LISP AI folklore John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-28 11:03 +0100
                          Re: LISP AI folklore BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-10-28 11:07 -0700
                            Re: LISP AI folklore John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 15:14 +0100
                            Re: LISP AI folklore rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2011-10-30 19:43 -0500
                              Re: LISP AI folklore Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-10-31 08:45 -0400
                    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 18:40 +0300
                Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-26 19:30 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#7746

27.10.2011 22:39, Mentifex kirjoitti:
> On Oct 27, 10:42 am, "Richard Cornford"<Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> In the case of the code associated with that URL the javascript source
>> is within the HTML source, so if you load it into IE, right click and
>> select "View Source" from the context menu a window will open showing
>> the source (containing the javascript), which can then be saved (and a
>> very similar procedure will be available on most other browsers, even if
>> they won't necessarily be able to execute the javascript (because it is
>> written to be very IE specific)).
>
> And Netizens who "save" the AiMind.html source code
> to an HTML file are invited to host successive versions
> of the AI Mind.html on their own website.
>
>>
>> On the other hand, once you have the source code the most
>> useful thing you could do with it is delete it.
>
> Ouch! Et tu, Richard? (Richard and I go way back, to 2004.)
>
>> As an example of javascript code it has no merits, and
>> its shortcomings in other areas are self-evident.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/msg/5921ee40ae0b94aa
> on "Self-Rejuvenating Immortal Artificial Intelligence" in 2004
> may be the time and place when Richard Cornford lost confidence
> in Mentifex AI. Nevertheless I have a high regard for Richard
> Cornford's knowledge and expertise in all things JavaScript.
> Le tout Internet may despise Mentifex AI, but Richard Cornford
> is too important a netgod for me to give up on. People who
> click on the above link and read the discussion back in 2004
> may see that Richard Cornford complained about "global variables"
> being used (back then) in the JavaScript AI. A year or two ago,
> I "deglobalized" most of the global variable in MindForth and in
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html for Internet Explorer.
>
> AJY:
>>> I recommend others to attempt to converse with that JavaScript
>>> Mentifex and evaluate it themselves.
>>
>> Well, I suppose it won't waste that much time to determine that it
>> gibbers incoherently for yourself.
>
> It no longer gibbers! It uses simple sentences of the
> Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) variety.
>
>>
>>> Most of the time it does not seem to give very fitting
>>> answers..............
>>
>> And the rest of the time any 'fitting' answers are probably down to
>> coincidence. Didn't someone mention confirmation bias?
>>
>> Richard.
>
> Right now the JSAI is having problems with the WhatBe()
> module, which holds onto any new noun and asks a
> question about it. I am correcting the deficiencies.
>
> Bye for now,
>
> Arthur T. Murray


Arthur I would like to ask:

* What kind of a background do you have in AI.

* What kind of a theory is this Mentifex program based on.

It would significantly increase the credibility of the Mentifex if you 
can mention to me some academic credentials.

And, if the program is not based on a theory ..... (the conclusion is 
highly evident.)

yours sincerely, A. J. Y.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7750

On Oct 27, 2:39 pm, Antti J Ylikoski <antti.yliko...@aalto.fi> wrote:
>
> Arthur I would like to ask:
>
> * What kind of a background do you have in AI.

Since I was a teen-ager I have been an
“independent scholar” in artificial intelligence
and as such in 2002 I published the
http://www.chatbots.org/book/ai4u/
volume describing the Mentifex AI project.

>
> * What kind of a theory is this Mentifex program based on.

As an undergraduate in Latin and Greek classics
at the University of Washington in Seattle, I
was reading Plato in the original Greek and I
was deeply impressed with the “De Anima”
by Aristotle on the nature of the mind. But I
was already far along in my independent AI
project, experimenting with electromechanical
relays to build switching circuits and alife.

http://mind.sourceforge.net/theory5.html
is a statement of the AI theory that took
me thirteen years to develop, also on-line at
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/BrainTheory
as part of the MindForth project wiki.
>
> It would significantly increase the credibility
> of the Mentifex if you can mention to me some
> academic credentials.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mentifex
shows my BA-in-classics education at

• Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of Washington
>
> And, if the program is not based on a theory .....
> (the conclusion is highly evident.)

The AI Mind program is so emphatically based on
a theory that I draw my very confidence in coding
the AI from my eagerness to implement the theory.

Currently the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth
and in JavaScript can both comprehend
and think simple English thoughts in
four different formats, with examples:
Subject – Predicate – Object (SPO): “Bears eat honey.”
Negated SPO: “Bears do not eat computers.”
Verbs of being: “I am a person.”
Negated be-verbs: “I am not a monster.”

> yours sincerely, A. J. Y.

Equally sincerely, A. T. M.
--
http://aimind-i.com
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7761

28.10.2011 1:47, Mentifex kirjoitti:
> On Oct 27, 2:39 pm, Antti J Ylikoski<antti.yliko...@aalto.fi>  wrote:
>>
>> Arthur I would like to ask:
>>
>> * What kind of a background do you have in AI.
>
> Since I was a teen-ager I have been an
> “independent scholar” in artificial intelligence
> and as such in 2002 I published the
> http://www.chatbots.org/book/ai4u/
> volume describing the Mentifex AI project.
>
>>
>> * What kind of a theory is this Mentifex program based on.
>
> As an undergraduate in Latin and Greek classics
> at the University of Washington in Seattle, I
> was reading Plato in the original Greek and I
> was deeply impressed with the “De Anima”
> by Aristotle on the nature of the mind. But I
> was already far along in my independent AI
> project, experimenting with electromechanical
> relays to build switching circuits and alife.
>
> http://mind.sourceforge.net/theory5.html
> is a statement of the AI theory that took
> me thirteen years to develop, also on-line at
> http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/BrainTheory
> as part of the MindForth project wiki.
>>
>> It would significantly increase the credibility
>> of the Mentifex if you can mention to me some
>> academic credentials.
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mentifex
> shows my BA-in-classics education at
>
> • Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
> • University of California, Berkeley
> • University of Washington
>>
>> And, if the program is not based on a theory .....
>> (the conclusion is highly evident.)
>
> The AI Mind program is so emphatically based on
> a theory that I draw my very confidence in coding
> the AI from my eagerness to implement the theory.
>
> Currently the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth
> and in JavaScript can both comprehend
> and think simple English thoughts in
> four different formats, with examples:
> Subject – Predicate – Object (SPO): “Bears eat honey.”
> Negated SPO: “Bears do not eat computers.”
> Verbs of being: “I am a person.”
> Negated be-verbs: “I am not a monster.”
>
>> yours sincerely, A. J. Y.
>
> Equally sincerely, A. T. M.
> --
> http://aimind-i.com
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html

OK, I see.

Anyway -- one of the AI people here said that an individual with no 
academic, scientific background in Artificial Intelligence is very 
unlikely to make any real scientific breakthroughs (quote having been 
paraphased by me).

I agree with that individual.

If you want to have the Mentifex taken seriously by all, I recommend 
that you first read:

#1.  Artificial Intelligence, Sixth Edition, by George F. Luger, ISBN 
978-0-321-54589-3

#2.  Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach, 3rd Edition, by 
Russell-Norvig, ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4

#3.  Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming, by Peter Norvig, 
ISBN 978-1-55860-191-8

for a very, very basic understanding of modern AI research -- and if you 
want to delve into this deeper than the surface so to speak, get and 
read the AAAI conference and the IJCAI conference proceedings e. g. from 
the year 2005 on.  After that you can have a more solid look at this 
Mentifex program.

yours, A. J. Y.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7763

28.10.2011 6:51, Antti J Ylikoski kirjoitti:
> 28.10.2011 1:47, Mentifex kirjoitti:
>> On Oct 27, 2:39 pm, Antti J Ylikoski<antti.yliko...@aalto.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> Arthur I would like to ask:
>>>
>>> * What kind of a background do you have in AI.
>>
>> Since I was a teen-ager I have been an
>> “independent scholar” in artificial intelligence
>> and as such in 2002 I published the
>> http://www.chatbots.org/book/ai4u/
>> volume describing the Mentifex AI project.
>>
>>>
>>> * What kind of a theory is this Mentifex program based on.
>>
>> As an undergraduate in Latin and Greek classics
>> at the University of Washington in Seattle, I
>> was reading Plato in the original Greek and I
>> was deeply impressed with the “De Anima”
>> by Aristotle on the nature of the mind. But I
>> was already far along in my independent AI
>> project, experimenting with electromechanical
>> relays to build switching circuits and alife.
>>
>> http://mind.sourceforge.net/theory5.html
>> is a statement of the AI theory that took
>> me thirteen years to develop, also on-line at
>> http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/BrainTheory
>> as part of the MindForth project wiki.
>>>
>>> It would significantly increase the credibility
>>> of the Mentifex if you can mention to me some
>>> academic credentials.
>>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mentifex
>> shows my BA-in-classics education at
>>
>> • Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
>> • University of California, Berkeley
>> • University of Washington
>>>
>>> And, if the program is not based on a theory .....
>>> (the conclusion is highly evident.)
>>
>> The AI Mind program is so emphatically based on
>> a theory that I draw my very confidence in coding
>> the AI from my eagerness to implement the theory.
>>
>> Currently the Mentifex AI Minds in Forth
>> and in JavaScript can both comprehend
>> and think simple English thoughts in
>> four different formats, with examples:
>> Subject – Predicate – Object (SPO): “Bears eat honey.”
>> Negated SPO: “Bears do not eat computers.”
>> Verbs of being: “I am a person.”
>> Negated be-verbs: “I am not a monster.”
>>
>>> yours sincerely, A. J. Y.
>>
>> Equally sincerely, A. T. M.
>> --
>> http://aimind-i.com
>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html
>
> OK, I see.
>
> Anyway -- one of the AI people here said that an individual with no
> academic, scientific background in Artificial Intelligence is very
> unlikely to make any real scientific breakthroughs (quote having been
> paraphased by me).
>
> I agree with that individual.
>
> If you want to have the Mentifex taken seriously by all, I recommend
> that you first read:
>
> #1. Artificial Intelligence, Sixth Edition, by George F. Luger, ISBN
> 978-0-321-54589-3
>
> #2. Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach, 3rd Edition, by
> Russell-Norvig, ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4
>
> #3. Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming, by Peter Norvig,
> ISBN 978-1-55860-191-8
>
> for a very, very basic understanding of modern AI research -- and if you
> want to delve into this deeper than the surface so to speak, get and
> read the AAAI conference and the IJCAI conference proceedings e. g. from
> the year 2005 on. After that you can have a more solid look at this
> Mentifex program.
>
> yours, A. J. Y.
>

And: Join the Association for the Advancement of Artificial 
Intelligence, http://www.aaai.org .

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7768

Antti J Ylikoski replied off-topic across 4 newsgroups without Followup-To 
to a posting of Arthur T. "Mentifex" Murray despite being notified several 
times before:

> […]

Which part of "Do not feed the troll" do you need tatooed on the container 
of your malfunctioning brain simulation?

*plonk*


F'up2 set appropriately

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7779

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 at 14:54:08, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

   <snip>
>> […]
   <snip>

Reminder : A ">" symbol starting a line in a news article signals that 
the rest of the line consists of text written by whoever is identified 
in the initial attribution line(s).

People who forge these quotation lines are worse than trolls. They 
should NOT be fond of shouting at people for disobeying their own ideas 
on netiquette.

   John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7807

On 2011-10-28, Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> wrote:
> If you want to have the Mentifex taken seriously by all, I recommend 
> that you first read:

Bad doctor! Check patient's file for known allergies before prescribing
medicine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8228

Antti J Ylikoski, 2011-10-27 23:39:

> 27.10.2011 22:39, Mentifex kirjoitti:
[...]
>> Right now the JSAI is having problems with the WhatBe()
>> module, which holds onto any new noun and asks a
>> question about it. I am correcting the deficiencies.
>>
>> Bye for now,
>>
>> Arthur T. Murray
> 
> 
> Arthur I would like to ask:
> 
> * What kind of a background do you have in AI.
> 
> * What kind of a theory is this Mentifex program based on.

Have a look at <http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html> - this
should answer your questions.



-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8241

On Nov 11, 2:34 am, Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>
> Have a look at <http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html> - this
> should answer your questions.
>

This seems to be a common theme among trolls. Their egos are tied to
their ideas so they refuse to subject their ideas to criticism lest
the slightest breeze of reality blow them over.

When I was very young, we would build forts out of the furniture
cushions. Our favorite part was destructive testing because it meant
we could build yet another fort.

-Brad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8227

Antti J Ylikoski, 2011-10-27 15:58:

> 27.10.2011 16:08, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti:
>> Antti J Ylikoski<antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi>  writes:
>>
>>> 26.10.2011 21:12, Mentifex kirjoitti:
>>>> On Oct 26, 5:13 am, Antti J Ylikoski<antti.yliko...@aalto.fi>   wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> First off, please be advised that over 25 and 26.OCT.2011 I
>>>> have labored exhaustively to bring the JavaScript AI (JSAI) at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html
>>>>
>>>> up on a par with the 32-bit or 64-bit MindForth AI.
>>>> Therefore Lisp programmers no longer need to
>>>> download Forth and run MindForth to see how the
>>>> AI mind learns, thinks and remembers.
>>>>
>>>>> Can the Mentifex program do something significantly
>>>>> exceeding ELIZA's  capabilities?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where can I see this JSAI Mentifex' source code, I would like to ask.
>>>
>>> I attempted to carry out a conversation with this JavaScript Mentifex,
>>> but I cannot evaluate it on that evidence alone.  It was not a very
>>> fluent companion in the discussion, anyway.
>>>
>>> yours, A. J. Y, attempting not to troll this group but carry out a
>>> scientific discussion.............
>>>
>>
>> wget http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html&&  emacs AiMind.html
>>
> 
> Thank you, but that works for Unix & Linux, and I'm using the Windows 7.

"View Source" in your Browser. The whole JavaScript stuff is within the
HTML document.

> I recommend others to attempt to converse with that JavaScript Mentifex 
> and evaluate it themselves.  Most of the time it does not seem to give 
> very fitting answers..............

Yep - because it's not "AI", it's just a simple JavaScript.


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7701

On Oct 26, 8:13 am, Antti J Ylikoski <antti.yliko...@aalto.fi> wrote:
> See with the Google, Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA program and its numerous
> reincarnations in multiple languages, even in early microcomputer
> BASIC.

> If you can use the GNU Emacs then the ELIZA (the original version) can
> be started with the command M-x doctor .

> Can the Mentifex program do something significantly exceeding ELIZA's
> capabilities?

Start with an Eliza-like program in Forth. Tinker with it for ten to
twenty years. Add strong confirmation bias. Voila, AI.

However, the core flaw is the bipedalism assumption. I believe that
hexapodia is the key insight, here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7705

In comp.lang.forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
> Start with an Eliza-like program in Forth. Tinker with it for ten to
> twenty years. Add strong confirmation bias. Voila, AI.

The really amazing scientific result is that you can do this, posting
periodically about your program for all ten or twenty years, and you'll
*still* get responses every single time you post.  I make no claims about the
scientific ramifications of this "AI" work, but the sociological implications
of always getting a response are profound.

-- 
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7706

vandys@vsta.org wrote:
> BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote

>> Start with an Eliza-like program in Forth. Tinker with it for
>> ten to twenty years. Add strong confirmation bias. Voila, AI.

> The really amazing scientific result is that you can do this, posting
> periodically about your program for all ten or twenty years, and
> you'll *still* get responses every single time you post.  I make no
> claims about the scientific ramifications of this "AI" work, but the
> sociological implications of always getting a response are profound.

Not really. You get a similar effect with stuff as mundane as C or even Cobol.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7766

On Oct 26, 4:11 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote:
> The really amazing scientific result is that you can do this, posting
> periodically about your program for all ten or twenty years, and you'll
> *still* get responses every single time you post.

Yes, with bipeds, this would be amazing, but I believe that hexapodia
is the key insight here, and among hexapods, this is far more to be
expected.

> I make no claims about the scientific ramifications of this "AI"
> work, but the sociological implications of always getting a
> response are profound.

Given that you are one of the respondents, you can even study the
matter introspectively.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7767

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 at 22:47:02, in comp.lang.javascript, BruceMcF
wrote:
>On Oct 26, 4:11 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote:
>> The really amazing scientific result is that you can do this, posting
>> periodically about your program for all ten or twenty years, and you'll
>> *still* get responses every single time you post.
>
>Yes, with bipeds, this would be amazing, but I believe that hexapodia
>is the key insight here, and among hexapods, this is far more to be
>expected.
  <snip>

Are you speaking for Twirlip of the Mists?

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7799

On Oct 28, 6:03 am, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 at 22:47:02, in comp.lang.javascript, BruceMcF
> wrote:>On Oct 26, 4:11 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote:

>>> The really amazing scientific result is that you can do this, posting
>>> periodically about your program for all ten or twenty years,
>>> and you'll *still* get responses every single time you post.

>>Yes, with bipeds, this would be amazing, but I believe that hexapodia
>>is the key insight here, and among hexapods, this is far more to be
>>expected.

> Are you speaking for Twirlip of the Mists?

Of course: standing on the shoulders of giants, and etc. Once one
realizes that the intended users of the Mentifex system are hexapods,
much that is obscure clears up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7806

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 at 11:07:27, in comp.lang.javascript, BruceMcF
wrote:
>On Oct 28, 6:03 am, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 at 22:47:02, in comp.lang.javascript, BruceMcF
>> wrote:>On Oct 26, 4:11 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote:
>
>>>> The really amazing scientific result is that you can do this, posting
>>>> periodically about your program for all ten or twenty years,
>>>> and you'll *still* get responses every single time you post.
>
>>>Yes, with bipeds, this would be amazing, but I believe that hexapodia
>>>is the key insight here, and among hexapods, this is far more to be
>>>expected.
>
>> Are you speaking for Twirlip of the Mists?
>
>Of course: standing on the shoulders of giants, and etc. Once one
>realizes that the intended users of the Mentifex system are hexapods,
>much that is obscure clears up.

Wowee! I see ... Yes that does indeed clear it up.

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7888

BruceMcF  <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
+---------------
| John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| > BruceMcF wrote:
| >> van...@vsta.org wrote:
| >>> ...and you'll *still* get responses every single time you post.
| 
| >>Yes, with bipeds, this would be amazing, but I believe that hexapodia
| >>is the key insight here, and among hexapods, this is far more to be
| >>expected.
| 
| > Are you speaking for Twirlip of the Mists?
| 
| Of course: standing on the shoulders of giants, and etc. Once one
| realizes that the intended users of the Mentifex system are hexapods,
| much that is obscure clears up.
+---------------

Speaking of clearing up obscure details, after "only" 19.5 years the
sequel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_the_Sky> is out. *Yippee!*
[Warning! Wikipedia article contains spoilers!] It takes place on the
Tines' World, starting two years after The Battle of Starship Hill.
Among other things, we learn interesting new details about the fabled
Tropical Choir. [And get hints that the Blight Fleet might not be dead,
only stalled a few decades away by ramscoop -- a shark in the dark, as
it were. "Da-dump da-dump da-dump..." ;-} ]

It's an o.k. read, IMHO, though nowhere as good as the aFUtD, of course.
And it just cries out for another sequel (or two!!), which I certainly
hope *won't* take another two decades!! [Especially given that I am very
skeptical that the Vingean Singularity will hit takeoff anytime soon enough
to help *either* VV or me! :-{ ]


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock		<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue		<http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7893

In article <R76dnWjcwafacjDTnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:

> It's an o.k. read, IMHO, though nowhere as good as the aFUtD, of course.
> And it just cries out for another sequel (or two!!), which I certainly
> hope *won't* take another two decades!! [Especially given that I am very
> skeptical that the Vingean Singularity will hit takeoff anytime soon enough
> to help *either* VV or me! :-{ ]
> 

No Singularity for us because we are in the Slow Zone.

-- 
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7787

26.10.2011 21:21, BruceMcF kirjoitti:
> On Oct 26, 8:13 am, Antti J Ylikoski<antti.yliko...@aalto.fi>  wrote:
>> See with the Google, Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA program and its numerous
>> reincarnations in multiple languages, even in early microcomputer
>> BASIC.
>
>> If you can use the GNU Emacs then the ELIZA (the original version) can
>> be started with the command M-x doctor .
>
>> Can the Mentifex program do something significantly exceeding ELIZA's
>> capabilities?
>
> Start with an Eliza-like program in Forth. Tinker with it for ten to
> twenty years. Add strong confirmation bias. Voila, AI.
>
> However, the core flaw is the bipedalism assumption. I believe that
> hexapodia is the key insight, here.

But the best flash of insight are the Chiroptera.

("E-mail has bugs.  Lepidoptera.")

andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web