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

Groups > comp.lang.lisp > #6304 > unrolled thread

LISP AI folklore

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

Contents

  LISP AI folklore Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-10-15 13:58 -0700
    Re: LISP AI folklore fortunatus <daniel.eliason@excite.com> - 2011-10-21 13:13 -0700
    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-22 12:39 +0300
      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 Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-24 20:55 +0300
                Re: LISP AI folklore "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-10-24 22:22 +0200
                  Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-25 04:56 +0300
                    Re: LISP AI folklore Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2011-10-25 07:48 +0100
                      Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-25 12:28 +0300
                        Re: LISP AI folklore Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-10-25 13:58 +0000
                          Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-26 08:03 +0300
                          Re: LISP AI folklore Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2011-10-26 21:17 +0100
                            Re: LISP AI folklore Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2011-10-28 17:13 +0200
                        Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-25 14:42 +0000
                Re: LISP AI folklore BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-10-25 17:03 -0700
                Re: LISP AI folklore "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2011-10-26 08:13 -0700
              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 Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 00:32 +0300
                                  Re: LISP AI folklore Espen Vestre <espen@vestre.net> - 2011-10-28 00:03 +0200
                                    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 06:26 +0300
                                      Re: LISP AI folklore Espen Vestre <espen@vestre.net> - 2011-10-28 09:32 +0200
                                        Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-11-03 16:30 +0200
                                  Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-27 23:33 +0000
                                    Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 06:32 +0300
                                  Re: LISP AI folklore Antony <remove+spam_lisp.linux@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 01:59 -0700
                                    Re: LISP AI folklore Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-28 19:59 +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 Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-10-28 16:04 +0300
                                        Re: LISP AI folklore Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2011-10-29 15:41 +0200
                                          Re: LISP AI folklore Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-11-03 16:39 +0200
                                        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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#6451

On 2011-10-28, Antony <remove+spam_lisp.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> In most browsers right clicking on the page and doing a view source 
> should show you the code. AFAIK this has feature been available in 
> browsers since 1998 if not earlier

Maybe his anti-virus program ate it.

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

#6421

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:58:43 +0300
Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> wrote:

> 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.

	Point browser at http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/AiMind.html and
select View/Page Source (or whatever the equivalent is on your browser),
or use File/Save Page As and then open it in a text editor.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#6422

Antti J Ylikoski wrote:
> 27.10.2011 16:08, Pascal J. Bourguignon kirjoitti:
>> Antti J Ylikoski<antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi>  writes:
<snip>
>>> 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.

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)).

On the other hand, once you have the source code the most useful thing 
you could do with it is delete it.
As an example of javascript code it has no merits, and its shortcomings 
in other areas are self-evident.

> 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.

> 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. 

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

#6425

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

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

#6427

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]

#6430

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]

#6436

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]

#6437

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]

#6444

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]

#6445

28.10.2011 15:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn kirjoitti:
> 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

See my entry about "Kritik der reinen Mentifex".

I wanted to see this program and its world.  It is not real good novel 
research, after getting to know what it contains... But I just wanted to 
see this thing, is it good for anything.  As I said, like a new Prolog 
interpreter.

Building a model of the human brain after Aristotle is not a good 
scientific idea.  It's like making skyscrapers after Egyptian pyramids 
(there is one I recall in Los Angeles.....)

andy

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

#6466

Am 10/28/2011 05:51 AM, schrieb Antti J Ylikoski:
> 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.
>

I'm far from judging Mentifex but I'm afraid from a Prolog point of
view this looks quite familiar. I'd like to suggest reading the
textbooks by Bratko and O'Keefe and working through "Computing with
Logic" by Maier & Warren which is a must read in any case.
In my opinion a 'thinking' program (whatever this may be) has to
provide a solution by means not inherent to code or data, an approach a
human being is capable of. I'm aware we cross the line to philisophy
here and numerous documents exist discussing this. Please refer to
Minsky and Dennet, for example. Anyway, "AI" is the most misleading and
deceptive term in computer science and I'm afraid we won't get far by 
just faking human behavior.

Regrads,
Michael

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

#6548

29.10.2011 16:41, Michael Moeller kirjoitti:
> Am 10/28/2011 05:51 AM, schrieb Antti J Ylikoski:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm far from judging Mentifex but I'm afraid from a Prolog point of
> view this looks quite familiar. I'd like to suggest reading the
> textbooks by Bratko and O'Keefe and working through "Computing with
> Logic" by Maier & Warren which is a must read in any case.
> In my opinion a 'thinking' program (whatever this may be) has to
> provide a solution by means not inherent to code or data, an approach a
> human being is capable of. I'm aware we cross the line to philisophy
> here and numerous documents exist discussing this. Please refer to
> Minsky and Dennet, for example. Anyway, "AI" is the most misleading and
> deceptive term in computer science and I'm afraid we won't get far by
> just faking human behavior.
>
> Regrads,
> Michael
>
>
>

A little Off Topic, ref: Prolog -- I have the following Prolog books in 
my bookshelf:

Ivan Bratko, PROLOG Programming for Artificial Intelligence
Clocksin-Mellish: Programming in Prolog
Richard O'Keefe: The Craft of Prolog
Sterling-Shapiro: The Art of Prolog

I wrote this for those of our readers who are interested in getting to 
know Prolog better (but I'm not saying that I were very knowledgeable 
about logic programming, I'm not, it is a nice tool anyway, in 
particular it is very easy to write small expert system shells and 
prototype expert systems in Prolog.)

Andy

PS.  I think that the science of AI is about reseaching quite general, 
unconstrained unlimited intelligence in humans, in machines, in slugs, 
everything that can and could exist to carry a mind.

Idem

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

#6468

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]

#6670

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]

#6680

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]

#6669

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]

#6401

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]

#6406

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]

#6408

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]

#6439

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]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web