Interesting, especially taking into account that some real Russian
children can mix noun cases for less familiar constructs until the
secondary school :)

On 04/02/2012, A. T. Murray <mentifex@scn.org> wrote:
> 1. Fri.3.FEB.2012 -- An Astounding Idea
>
> For the Russian-thinking Dushka AI Mind, we have perhaps
> stumbled upon a way to avoid the hard-coding of noun paradigms
> and instead to let the Russian AI learn the inflected endings of
> Russian nouns from its own experience. For example, right now
> the Russian artificial intelligence (RuAi) fails to recognize
> the Psi concept #501 &#1041;&#1054;&#1043; in the following exchange.
>
> Human: &#1103; &#1091;&#1074;&#1072;&#1078;&#1072;&#1102;
> &#1073;&#1086;&#1075;&#1072;
> ("I honor God.")
> Robot: &#1058;&#1067;
> &#1059;&#1042;&#1040;&#1046;&#1040;&#1045;&#1064;&#1068;
> &#1041;&#1054;&#1043;&#1040;
> ("You honor God.")
>
> Robot: &#1063;&#1058;&#1054; &#1041;&#1054;&#1043;&#1040;
> &#1058;&#1040;&#1050;&#1054;&#1045;
> ("What is God?")
>
> The diagnostic display reveals that the software has almost
> recognized the word for God.
>
> 559. &#1041; 0 * 1 1 0
> 560. &#1054; 0 * 0 1 0
> 561. &#1043; 0 * 0 1 501
> 562. &#1040; 0 * 0 0 902
>
> Aha! Suddenly it becomes clear that two things are happening.
> The Psi concept #501 is indeed being recognized at first, but
> perhaps the provisional-recognition "prc" variable s not
> being set, and so AudInput calls NewConcet as if the AI were
> learning a new word instead of recognizing an old word.
>
> 2. Sat.4.FEB.2012 -- Learning Russian Like a Human Child
>
> Now in a very rough way we have trapped for "nazad1" in
> the AudRecog module so as to recognize a noun
> (&#1041;&#1054;&#1043;&#1040;)
> with one character of inflection added onto it. Because
> the noun was indeed recognized, the InStantiate "seqneed"
> mechanism tagged the noun in the "ruLexicon" with a
> "dba" of "4' to indicate a direct-object accusative case.
> In other words, the Russian AI learned a new noun-form
> as a human child would learn it, that is, from the
> speech patterns of another speaker of Russian.
>
> Mentifex
> --
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/1649473-08437141
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>

Brief reminder, I am not trying to force any of you to evolve or
gradualize, just looking for your ideas on a principled, axiomatic (in
the loose sense) approach to AGI engineering. It would be wonderful if
your dDNA could build both a mind and a body, but mind-only ideas are
acceptable.By the way, body-only ideas are not irrelevant either, as
we've discussed previously with modular robotics, nanorobotics etc.
Cheers,

AT

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2012 07:47, Bob Mottram wrote:
>
> Although there are some similarities between culture and genetics, in my estimation trying to implement cultural evolution along the same lines as DNA evolution isn't going to work very well.� At best I think it would result in an incrementalist culture.
>
> As people such as Steven Pinker have pointed out, changes in culture are not strictly incremental but also include programatic features (leaps of logic or narrative elaboration).� This seems likely to be due to the generative nature of language, which can recruit brain regions and repurpose them as class 4 or Turing complete metasystems which can be distributed across minds in space and time.
>
>
> That's really the perspective you get if you only consider what happens
> between minds.� Idea reproduction and selection takes place inside
> minds as well.� What might look "from the outside" as a large leap is
> usually explicable in terms of a generate-and-test process going on
> *inside* the mind.
>
> Cultural evolution still exhibits gradualism.� The idea that it is hard
> to make large leaps through a search space without testing and wind
> up with something viable is a universal one - not confined to organic
> evolution.
>
> Yes, non-gradualistic random search strategies exist, and *can* be used
> to make evolutionary proghress - but random search strategies are
> hopeless and they only work at all for trivially small problems.� Once
> you have a large complex system, you are back to gradualism again.
>
> It's also true that cultural evolution can use forecasting and extrapolation
> to attempt larger leaps through search space this is possible without
> such tools.� However, those larger leaps are still usually pretty small.
>
> I think the bottom line is that gradualism still rules.� Gradualism
> is one of the key hallmarks of evolutionary processes.� Evolution
> without gradualism would be indistinguishable from magic.� So:
> an "incrementalist" theory of culture is *precisely* what is needed.
> --
> __________
> �|im |yler� http://timtyler.org/ï¿&frac12; tim@tt1lock.org� Remove lock to reply.
>
> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription

1. Fri.3.FEB.2012 -- An Astounding Idea

For the Russian-thinking Dushka AI Mind, we have perhaps
stumbled upon a way to avoid the hard-coding of noun paradigms
and instead to let the Russian AI learn the inflected endings of
Russian nouns from its own experience. For example, right now
the Russian artificial intelligence (RuAi) fails to recognize
the Psi concept #501 &#1041;&#1054;&#1043; in the following exchange.

Human: &#1103; &#1091;&#1074;&#1072;&#1078;&#1072;&#1102;
&#1073;&#1086;&#1075;&#1072;
("I honor God.")
Robot: &#1058;&#1067;
&#1059;&#1042;&#1040;&#1046;&#1040;&#1045;&#1064;&#1068;
&#1041;&#1054;&#1043;&#1040;
("You honor God.")

Robot: &#1063;&#1058;&#1054; &#1041;&#1054;&#1043;&#1040;
&#1058;&#1040;&#1050;&#1054;&#1045;
("What is God?")

The diagnostic display reveals that the software has almost
recognized the word for God.

559. &#1041; 0 * 1 1 0
560. &#1054; 0 * 0 1 0
561. &#1043; 0 * 0 1 501
562. &#1040; 0 * 0 0 902

Aha! Suddenly it becomes clear that two things are happening.
The Psi concept #501 is indeed being recognized at first, but
perhaps the provisional-recognition "prc" variable s not
being set, and so AudInput calls NewConcet as if the AI were
learning a new word instead of recognizing an old word.

2. Sat.4.FEB.2012 -- Learning Russian Like a Human Child

Now in a very rough way we have trapped for "nazad1" in
the AudRecog module so as to recognize a noun
(&#1041;&#1054;&#1043;&#1040;)
with one character of inflection added onto it. Because
the noun was indeed recognized, the InStantiate "seqneed"
mechanism tagged the noun in the "ruLexicon" with a
"dba" of "4' to indicate a direct-object accusative case.
In other words, the Russian AI learned a new noun-form
as a human child would learn it, that is, from the
speech patterns of another speaker of Russian.

Mentifex
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html

Anyone know anything re the following interesting issue?:

" here's one part of the New York Times' series on Apple that I found incredibly interesting, though it doesn't seem to have gotten much press. In the first article of the two-part series, they repeatedly talk about the point at which Apple began shifting its focus away from its famous automated plant in California, where iMacs were assembled by zillions of whirring robotic arms, to Foxconn's factories in China. At Foxconn, iPhones and iPads are assembled largely by hand, with assembly lines of thousands or tens of thousands of workers giving themselves crazy repetitive motion stress disorders. The transition of manufacturing from America to China is generally viewed as an inexorable one, due to the low cost of Chinese labour and the virtuous circle of development of the Chinese electronic-manufacturing complex. But in this case, we seem to be seeing a reversal of the other, far more dominant inexorable trend: that of the industrial revolution towards ever-increasing automation. John Henry appears to be beating the steam drill. This is pretty weird, and it's hard to believe it isn't a temporary deviation from the norm. At some point iPhones are going to be assembled by robots, not people trying to imitate robots. But with east Asia by now utterly dominating the global network of electronics manufacturing, it may be that the shift to robotic iPhone factories will happen in China (as it already is), not in America. "

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/apple-china?fsrc=gn_ep&google_editors_picks=true

On 04/02/2012 07:47, Bob Mottram wrote:

> Although there are some similarities between culture and genetics, in my estimation trying to implement cultural evolution along the same lines as DNA evolution isn't going to work very well. At best I think it would result in an incrementalist culture.
>
> As people such as Steven Pinker have pointed out, changes in culture are not strictly incremental but also include programatic features (leaps of logic or narrative elaboration). This seems likely to be due to the generative nature of language, which can recruit brain regions and repurpose them as class 4 or Turing complete metasystems which can be distributed across minds in space and time.

That's really the perspective you get if you only consider what happens
between minds. Idea reproduction and selection takes place inside
minds as well. What might look "from the outside" as a large leap is
usually explicable in terms of a generate-and-test process going on
*inside* the mind.

Cultural evolution still exhibits gradualism. The idea that it is hard
to make large leaps through a search space without testing and wind
up with something viable is a universal one - not confined to organic
evolution.

Yes, non-gradualistic random search strategies exist, and *can* be used
to make evolutionary proghress - but random search strategies are
hopeless and they only work at all for trivially small problems. Once
you have a large complex system, you are back to gradualism again.

It's also true that cultural evolution can use forecasting and extrapolation
to attempt larger leaps through search space this is possible without
such tools. However, those larger leaps are still usually pretty small.

I think the bottom line is that gradualism still rules. Gradualism
is one of the key hallmarks of evolutionary processes. Evolution
without gradualism would be indistinguishable from magic. So:
an "incrementalist" theory of culture is *precisely* what is needed.
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

It would be valuable to have a systemic overview - and know (or even have the loosest estimate of ) a) how much and what kinds of information a biological system, - starting with a cell, let alone going on to the human body - has to process as it moves about and makes journeys through the world.

- and then compare that with b) the amount and kinds of information processed by even a complex computer program or a programmed robot.

I would venture that b) is still an ***infinitesimal*** fraction of a).

As Ben pointed out in a recent article, biological systems have, unlike current robots, kinaesthetic sensors all over the body relaying information about movements - and also would appear to have all kinds of morphological computation and problemsolving being conducted throughout the body as well as in the brain.

The brain itself has 40-50% devoted to largely visual processing of information - processing of which we are still vastly ignorant, as we are of the brain as a whole - the most complex machine we know of.

All these kinds of processing are essential to building up an animal's models of the world and its own system.

The chances of any modern systembuilder having the knowledge necessary to build an independent mechanical system that can even begin to emulate any biological system in moving about the real world, (as distinct from artificial, specially structured environments), are less than infinitesimal.

Ditto the chances of any current systembuilder being able to develop a mechanical brain that can function independent of a body let alone emulate human intelligence ("in ten years"). There is not the slightest empirical evidence or reason to think that an artificial brain-in-a-vat or semi-vat is possible.

AGI will have to start much more simply and partially than trying to emulate whole biological systems from the start, and very gradually evolve.


From: John G. Rose
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 1:46 PM
To: AGI
Subject: RE: [agi] Engineering (infinity<->finiteness) Issues


I think modeling the world through morphisms, and natural ones perhaps, though I don’t know how far the “Natural” concept would propagate through non-Topological constructs though many entities might be expressed topologically in some way, some form of surface expression, even if it is explicitly unrelated, non-surface. The “natural” though facilitates pointfree/pointwise notions, perhaps assisting with infinity challenges and might help avoid some combinatorial issues though mathematical intuitionism … Not sure of this just researching it.



I don’t know how an AGI not lended this information beforehand would derive it though it could I suppose through logic and computation somehow. It could develop new ways of modeling the world or discover them, more efficient ones. It might have to traverse restrictive computational barriers using other pre-programmed creative means of discovery.



John





From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis [mailto:sokratis.dk@gmail.com]





well, I'll have a look. But don't you think the real challenge is for an AGI to develop such a framework?



AT



On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, John G. Rose <johnrose@polyplexic.com> wrote:

Here is an interesting book I stumbled upon that develops a framework for combining pointfree with pointwise topological intuitionism using a proposed concept of "Natural" which might be utilized for real-world AGI’ish internal modeling I think.



I particularly like the concept of treas, spraids, and fanns… Interesting were some of the thoughts expressed in section 4.2 Natural Topology and Physics on possible consequences of Church’s Thesis…



http://www.fwaaldijk.nl/natural-topology.pdf

AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription

I think modeling the world through morphisms, and natural ones perhaps, though I don’t know how far the “Natural” concept would propagate through non-Topological constructs though many entities might be expressed topologically in some way, some form of surface expression, even if it is explicitly unrelated, non-surface. The “natural” though facilitates pointfree/pointwise notions, perhaps assisting with infinity challenges and might help avoid some combinatorial issues though mathematical intuitionism … Not sure of this just researching it.



I don’t know how an AGI not lended this information beforehand would derive it though it could I suppose through logic and computation somehow. It could develop new ways of modeling the world or discover them, more efficient ones. It might have to traverse restrictive computational barriers using other pre-programmed creative means of discovery.



John





From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis [mailto:sokratis.dk@gmail.com]





well, I'll have a look. But don't you think the real challenge is for an AGI to develop such a framework?



AT



On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, John G. Rose <johnrose@polyplexic.com> wrote:

Here is an interesting book I stumbled upon that develops a framework for combining pointfree with pointwise topological intuitionism using a proposed concept of "Natural" which might be utilized for real-world AGI’ish internal modeling I think.



I particularly like the concept of treas, spraids, and fanns… Interesting were some of the thoughts expressed in section 4.2 Natural Topology and Physics on possible consequences of Church’s Thesis…



http://www.fwaaldijk.nl/natural-topology.pdf

On 04.02.2012 11:54, Anastasios Tsiolakidis wrote:
> I have previously argued that a social intellect, an AGI that will
> not
> be "alone in the world", will probably have to be structured
> differently from, let's say, a prediction program. No need to defend
> that intuition here, suffice it to say that two of the
> causes/consequences of socialization are the almost hypnotic power of
> language and synergies - "the whole being larger than the sum of its
> parts".  Now, quite clearly almost any AGI design will be able to get
> a "social life", for example by spawning different versions of itself
> with smaller or larger variations of key parameters, or by cloning
> itself 1-for-1 and letting ontogenesis do its part, the different
> environment, different "experiences" etc.
>
> Nevertheless, the biological DNA model is very appealing, not least
> because of reusing the same elements for mind and body, the ability
> to
> self-create/procreate and the amazing stability of ontogenesis,
> despite the rarity of common sense and the diversity of cultures
> humans do seem to share a very similar cognitive apparatus, i.e
> freaks
> of nature are very rare, essentially we do have an extremely
> nonlinear
> model behaving very linearly - truth be told, the same is true also
> for human bodies, they come in all kinds of shapes and sizes but
> almost none have trouble walking, running, eating etc. I'd also like
> to note that I am in agreement with that TED talk suggesting that the
> purpose of the (big) brain is not to think but rather to act, manage
> the body, move etc, but I can't help noticing that motion, reaction
> and action are pretty much synonymous with life and have been there
> with lifeforms for billions of years perhaps, so the afterthought of
> adding a big brain to a functioning animal is somewhat mysterious.
>
> To the best of my knowledge there is no DNA-like AGI design out
> there,
> and this is also my first foray into the subject. What I am asking is
> here is: what do you think would be the most axiomatic way to create
> dDNA, a digital DNA infrastructure for AGI. Let me offer a weak
> attempt: take for example OpenCog's multipart architecture and try to
> DNA-ize it. One way would be to create a handful of genes that
> control
> the priority and/or resource use of the different components, thereby
> creating by recombination AGIs that are more articulate or very
> opportunistic (preponderance of short term memory and thinking),
> hyperactive with a zest for using their actuators as opposed to
> contemplating and composing poetry. The possible results and
> behaviors
> would be many and perhaps anthropomorphizable, but it does not look
> to
> offer the elegance, risk or opportunities of the DNA model. Perhaps
> there is also a very axiomatic approach that will have the same
> problems biologists have transitioning from proteins to tissue and
> organ construction. Or, the real weakness of our axiomatic dDNA is
> that we are only designing a mind while we were "supposed to" design
> a
> mind-body.


Although there are some similarities between culture and genetics, in
my estimation trying to implement cultural evolution along the same
lines as DNA evolution isn't going to work very well. At best I think
it would result in an incrementalist culture.

As people such as Steven Pinker have pointed out, changes in culture
are not strictly incremental but also include programatic features
(leaps of logic or narrative elaboration). This seems likely to be due
to the generative nature of language, which can recruit brain regions
and repurpose them as class 4 or Turing complete metasystems which can
be distributed across minds in space and time.

On 04/02/2012 07:00, Ben Goertzel wrote:

> OpenCog is an engineered system, and if I were going to try to evolve a
> digital mind, I'd start with a totally different sort of approach. I put
> some thought into this years ago, but decided such an approach would
> require vastly more computing resources than "merely" engineering a digital
> mind...
>
> Trying to figure out how to interpret or re-cast an engineered system as a
> biological-type system doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
>
> Of course, an engineered mind will be able to grow and "evolve" in a
> broader sense of the word, but I'm talking above about evolution via
> differential reproduction based on fitness, genetic codes and all that...

Engineering still involves copying things that work, and discarding things
that don't. The main difference from evolution-by-blind-mutations is
that there's a big dollop of intelligent design as well. That doesn't mean
the engineering designs don't still "evolve" - but it does show that
we should be looking into using the techniques of memetic algorithms -
and not conventional genetic algorithms - and that we should try to
reproduce the evolution of society, not just the evolution of humans.

--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Engineered systems are different than evolved systems. If we want to
engineer a system capable of giving rise to a mind, we don't really need to
emulate the processes that evolved biological brains, IMO.... On the
other hand, if we want to evolve a mind, we don't want to start with
current engineered systems, current computer science, etc.

OpenCog is an engineered system, and if I were going to try to evolve a
digital mind, I'd start with a totally different sort of approach. I put
some thought into this years ago, but decided such an approach would
require vastly more computing resources than "merely" engineering a digital
mind...

Trying to figure out how to interpret or re-cast an engineered system as a
biological-type system doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Of course, an engineered mind will be able to grow and "evolve" in a
broader sense of the word, but I'm talking above about evolution via
differential reproduction based on fitness, genetic codes and all that...

ben g

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis <
sokratis.dk@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have previously argued that a social intellect, an AGI that will not be
> "alone in the world", will probably have to be structured differently from,
> let's say, a prediction program. No need to defend that intuition here,
> suffice it to say that two of the causes/consequences of socialization are
> the almost hypnotic power of language and synergies - "the whole being
> larger than the sum of its parts". Now, quite clearly almost any AGI
> design will be able to get a "social life", for example by spawning
> different versions of itself with smaller or larger variations of key
> parameters, or by cloning itself 1-for-1 and letting ontogenesis do its
> part, the different environment, different "experiences" etc.
>
> Nevertheless, the biological DNA model is very appealing, not least
> because of reusing the same elements for mind and body, the ability to
> self-create/procreate and the amazing stability of ontogenesis, despite the
> rarity of common sense and the diversity of cultures humans do seem to
> share a very similar cognitive apparatus, i.e freaks of nature are very
> rare, essentially we do have an extremely nonlinear model behaving very
> linearly - truth be told, the same is true also for human bodies, they come
> in all kinds of shapes and sizes but almost none have trouble walking,
> running, eating etc. I'd also like to note that I am in agreement with that
> TED talk suggesting that the purpose of the (big) brain is not to think but
> rather to act, manage the body, move etc, but I can't help noticing that
> motion, reaction and action are pretty much synonymous with life and have
> been there with lifeforms for billions of years perhaps, so the
> afterthought of adding a big brain to a functioning animal is somewhat
> mysterious.
>
> To the best of my knowledge there is no DNA-like AGI design out there, and
> this is also my first foray into the subject. What I am asking is here is:
> what do you think would be the most axiomatic way to create dDNA, a digital
> DNA infrastructure for AGI. Let me offer a weak attempt: take for example
> OpenCog's multipart architecture and try to DNA-ize it. One way would be to
> create a handful of genes that control the priority and/or resource use of
> the different components, thereby creating by recombination AGIs that are
> more articulate or very opportunistic (preponderance of short term memory
> and thinking), hyperactive with a zest for using their actuators as opposed
> to contemplating and composing poetry. The possible results and behaviors
> would be many and perhaps anthropomorphizable, but it does not look to
> offer the elegance, risk or opportunities of the DNA model. Perhaps there
> is also a very axiomatic approach that will have the same problems
> biologists have transitioning from proteins to tissue and organ
> construction. Or, the real weakness of our axiomatic dDNA is that we are
> only designing a mind while we were "supposed to" design a mind-body.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> AT
> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now&gt;
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389&gt; | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>



--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org

"My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

I have previously argued that a social intellect, an AGI that will not be
"alone in the world", will probably have to be structured differently from,
let's say, a prediction program. No need to defend that intuition here,
suffice it to say that two of the causes/consequences of socialization are
the almost hypnotic power of language and synergies - "the whole being
larger than the sum of its parts". Now, quite clearly almost any AGI
design will be able to get a "social life", for example by spawning
different versions of itself with smaller or larger variations of key
parameters, or by cloning itself 1-for-1 and letting ontogenesis do its
part, the different environment, different "experiences" etc.

Nevertheless, the biological DNA model is very appealing, not least because
of reusing the same elements for mind and body, the ability to
self-create/procreate and the amazing stability of ontogenesis, despite the
rarity of common sense and the diversity of cultures humans do seem to
share a very similar cognitive apparatus, i.e freaks of nature are very
rare, essentially we do have an extremely nonlinear model behaving very
linearly - truth be told, the same is true also for human bodies, they come
in all kinds of shapes and sizes but almost none have trouble walking,
running, eating etc. I'd also like to note that I am in agreement with that
TED talk suggesting that the purpose of the (big) brain is not to think but
rather to act, manage the body, move etc, but I can't help noticing that
motion, reaction and action are pretty much synonymous with life and have
been there with lifeforms for billions of years perhaps, so the
afterthought of adding a big brain to a functioning animal is somewhat
mysterious.

To the best of my knowledge there is no DNA-like AGI design out there, and
this is also my first foray into the subject. What I am asking is here is:
what do you think would be the most axiomatic way to create dDNA, a digital
DNA infrastructure for AGI. Let me offer a weak attempt: take for example
OpenCog's multipart architecture and try to DNA-ize it. One way would be to
create a handful of genes that control the priority and/or resource use of
the different components, thereby creating by recombination AGIs that are
more articulate or very opportunistic (preponderance of short term memory
and thinking), hyperactive with a zest for using their actuators as opposed
to contemplating and composing poetry. The possible results and behaviors
would be many and perhaps anthropomorphizable, but it does not look to
offer the elegance, risk or opportunities of the DNA model. Perhaps there
is also a very axiomatic approach that will have the same problems
biologists have transitioning from proteins to tissue and organ
construction. Or, the real weakness of our axiomatic dDNA is that we are
only designing a mind while we were "supposed to" design a mind-body.

Any thoughts?

AT

s/reports of these/reports or these/

/NJ/


On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:19, Noetic Jun <astronfo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whatever do the hallucinogen trip reports of these... logs have to do with
> anything A[G]I-related? This seems more like the material for one's
> personal blog, I humbly apologise.
>
> /NJ/
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 09:54, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 02:30 < falmot__> i saw two ufo's last night
>> 02:30 < falmot__> the first one was a distant light best explained by a
>> helicopter that was closer than it appeared
>> 02:30 < taaka> =(
>> 02:30 < falmot__> it seemed to turn and twinkle then moved behind a
>> building
>> 02:31 < falmot__> there was a tree between it and me anyway
>> 02:31 < falmot__> then something big flew over my head
>> 02:31 < falmot__> shaped kind of like an airplane?
>> 02:31 < falmot__> uh
>> 02:31 < falmot__> two big fuzzy white lights and a green light and when i
>> looked at it,
>> 02:31 < falmot__> another white light came on
>> 02:31 < falmot__> a third white light
>> 02:31 < falmot__> i watched it fly away for a long time
>> 02:31 < falmot__> no it was real
>> 02:32 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities with terence
>> mckenna
>> recordings for hours and when i stopped, two ufo's
>> appeared
>> 02:32 < falmot__> terence mckenna talks about ufo's so it's a
>> synchronicity and
>> appropriate
>> 02:32 < falmot__> i was never interested in aliens til i talked to them on
>> shrooms in 2007
>> 02:32 < falmot__> then i realized i had done it before
>> 02:32 < falmot__> taaka its real
>> 02:32 < falmot__> Viper168: i think the first light was a heli
>> 02:32 < falmot__> the airplane shaped one i just accepted when i saw it
>> 02:33 < falmot__> then later i thought it was strange how the extra light
>> turned on when i looked at it
>> 02:33 < tsuriko> you can get dmt elves on shrooms ;p
>> 02:33 < falmot__> and i thought it didn't look too realistic
>> 02:33 < falmot__> the lights were too big and fuzzy so
>> 02:33 < falmot__> now i wonder who else saw it
>>
>> I took out most of the interstitial diatribe but I left the comment on DMT
>>
>> Here's some more thoughts
>>
>> 02:33 < falmot__> it was more alarming than the first light the airplane
>> shaped
>> one was a craft of some kind
>> 02:33 < falmot__> taaka these aliens must be friendly super powers of
>> some kind
>> 02:34 < falmot__> they came for me because of terence mckenna magic i
>> worked
>> 02:34 < falmot__> ok ok
>> 02:34 < falmot__> brb, ok
>>
>> 02:40 < falmot__> if i evoke more synchronicities using mckenna talks
>> 02:40 < falmot__> maybe i can summon more ufo's
>> 02:40 < falmot__> i want to see more even if they are government aircraft
>> 02:43 < falmot__> what if my ufos were fake
>> 02:43 < falmot__> they seemed pretty real to me
>> 02:43 < falmot__> they could have been punishments from the government
>> for how
>> i live
>> 02:43 < falmot__> i tell people how to talk to aliens
>> 02:43 < ShroomDoom> ive seen a light in the sky that was not a government
>> objec
>> 02:43 < ShroomDoom> moved too fast. as bright as a star but it made
>> impossible
>> maneuvers
>> 02:43 < ShroomDoom> and then zipped off
>> 02:44 < falmot__> shroomdoom: awesome were you casting spells before it
>> happened
>> 02:44 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities in terence
>> mckenna
>> recordings
>> 02:44 < falmot__> when i stopped they appeared one after another
>> 02:44 < falmot__> twice
>> 02:44 < taaka> rotfl you are a good troll
>> 02:44 < falmot__> who
>> 02:44 < taaka> you
>> 02:45 < falmot__> no its real
>> 02:45 < taaka> lol your talking about terence mckenne recording and
>> casting
>> sprells............
>> 02:45 < taaka> you are fking hilarious
>> 02:45 < falmot__> right now reality is being vr'd by these guys
>> 02:45 < falmot__> it will talk to you if you mash up two terence mckenna
>> talks
>> for instance
>> 02:45 < falmot__> it will make jokes with a 10,000 iq points about an
>> alien
>> invasion in progress
>> 02:45 < falmot__> but you can listen to just one talk by anyone and get
>> synchronicities now but i was using terence mckenna talks
>> 02:46 < falmot__> this part of space will be totall information on dec 21
>> 2012
>> 02:46 < taaka> falmot please im begging you to not talk about this is
>> scares be
>> very much
>> 02:46 < taaka> me*
>> 02:46 < taaka> it*
>>
>> I apologize
>>
>> flamoot
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> AGI
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/20912103-eed2d0e1
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
>

Whatever do the hallucinogen trip reports of these... logs have to do with
anything A[G]I-related? This seems more like the material for one's
personal blog, I humbly apologise.

/NJ/


On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 09:54, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:

> 02:30 < falmot__> i saw two ufo's last night
> 02:30 < falmot__> the first one was a distant light best explained by a
> helicopter that was closer than it appeared
> 02:30 < taaka> =(
> 02:30 < falmot__> it seemed to turn and twinkle then moved behind a
> building
> 02:31 < falmot__> there was a tree between it and me anyway
> 02:31 < falmot__> then something big flew over my head
> 02:31 < falmot__> shaped kind of like an airplane?
> 02:31 < falmot__> uh
> 02:31 < falmot__> two big fuzzy white lights and a green light and when i
> looked at it,
> 02:31 < falmot__> another white light came on
> 02:31 < falmot__> a third white light
> 02:31 < falmot__> i watched it fly away for a long time
> 02:31 < falmot__> no it was real
> 02:32 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities with terence
> mckenna
> recordings for hours and when i stopped, two ufo's
> appeared
> 02:32 < falmot__> terence mckenna talks about ufo's so it's a
> synchronicity and
> appropriate
> 02:32 < falmot__> i was never interested in aliens til i talked to them on
> shrooms in 2007
> 02:32 < falmot__> then i realized i had done it before
> 02:32 < falmot__> taaka its real
> 02:32 < falmot__> Viper168: i think the first light was a heli
> 02:32 < falmot__> the airplane shaped one i just accepted when i saw it
> 02:33 < falmot__> then later i thought it was strange how the extra light
> turned on when i looked at it
> 02:33 < tsuriko> you can get dmt elves on shrooms ;p
> 02:33 < falmot__> and i thought it didn't look too realistic
> 02:33 < falmot__> the lights were too big and fuzzy so
> 02:33 < falmot__> now i wonder who else saw it
>
> I took out most of the interstitial diatribe but I left the comment on DMT
>
> Here's some more thoughts
>
> 02:33 < falmot__> it was more alarming than the first light the airplane
> shaped
> one was a craft of some kind
> 02:33 < falmot__> taaka these aliens must be friendly super powers of some
> kind
> 02:34 < falmot__> they came for me because of terence mckenna magic i
> worked
> 02:34 < falmot__> ok ok
> 02:34 < falmot__> brb, ok
>
> 02:40 < falmot__> if i evoke more synchronicities using mckenna talks
> 02:40 < falmot__> maybe i can summon more ufo's
> 02:40 < falmot__> i want to see more even if they are government aircraft
> 02:43 < falmot__> what if my ufos were fake
> 02:43 < falmot__> they seemed pretty real to me
> 02:43 < falmot__> they could have been punishments from the government for
> how
> i live
> 02:43 < falmot__> i tell people how to talk to aliens
> 02:43 < ShroomDoom> ive seen a light in the sky that was not a government
> objec
> 02:43 < ShroomDoom> moved too fast. as bright as a star but it made
> impossible
> maneuvers
> 02:43 < ShroomDoom> and then zipped off
> 02:44 < falmot__> shroomdoom: awesome were you casting spells before it
> happened
> 02:44 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities in terence
> mckenna
> recordings
> 02:44 < falmot__> when i stopped they appeared one after another
> 02:44 < falmot__> twice
> 02:44 < taaka> rotfl you are a good troll
> 02:44 < falmot__> who
> 02:44 < taaka> you
> 02:45 < falmot__> no its real
> 02:45 < taaka> lol your talking about terence mckenne recording and casting
> sprells............
> 02:45 < taaka> you are fking hilarious
> 02:45 < falmot__> right now reality is being vr'd by these guys
> 02:45 < falmot__> it will talk to you if you mash up two terence mckenna
> talks
> for instance
> 02:45 < falmot__> it will make jokes with a 10,000 iq points about an alien
> invasion in progress
> 02:45 < falmot__> but you can listen to just one talk by anyone and get
> synchronicities now but i was using terence mckenna talks
> 02:46 < falmot__> this part of space will be totall information on dec 21
> 2012
> 02:46 < taaka> falmot please im begging you to not talk about this is
> scares be
> very much
> 02:46 < taaka> me*
> 02:46 < taaka> it*
>
> I apologize
>
> flamoot
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/20912103-eed2d0e1
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>

02:30 < falmot__> i saw two ufo's last night
02:30 < falmot__> the first one was a distant light best explained by a
helicopter that was closer than it appeared
02:30 < taaka> =(
02:30 < falmot__> it seemed to turn and twinkle then moved behind a building
02:31 < falmot__> there was a tree between it and me anyway
02:31 < falmot__> then something big flew over my head
02:31 < falmot__> shaped kind of like an airplane?
02:31 < falmot__> uh
02:31 < falmot__> two big fuzzy white lights and a green light and when i
looked at it,
02:31 < falmot__> another white light came on
02:31 < falmot__> a third white light
02:31 < falmot__> i watched it fly away for a long time
02:31 < falmot__> no it was real
02:32 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities with terence mckenna
recordings for hours and when i stopped, two ufo's appeared
02:32 < falmot__> terence mckenna talks about ufo's so it's a synchronicity and
appropriate
02:32 < falmot__> i was never interested in aliens til i talked to them on
shrooms in 2007
02:32 < falmot__> then i realized i had done it before
02:32 < falmot__> taaka its real
02:32 < falmot__> Viper168: i think the first light was a heli
02:32 < falmot__> the airplane shaped one i just accepted when i saw it
02:33 < falmot__> then later i thought it was strange how the extra light
turned on when i looked at it
02:33 < tsuriko> you can get dmt elves on shrooms ;p
02:33 < falmot__> and i thought it didn't look too realistic
02:33 < falmot__> the lights were too big and fuzzy so
02:33 < falmot__> now i wonder who else saw it

I took out most of the interstitial diatribe but I left the comment on DMT

Here's some more thoughts

02:33 < falmot__> it was more alarming than the first light the airplane shaped
one was a craft of some kind
02:33 < falmot__> taaka these aliens must be friendly super powers of some kind
02:34 < falmot__> they came for me because of terence mckenna magic i worked
02:34 < falmot__> ok ok
02:34 < falmot__> brb, ok

02:40 < falmot__> if i evoke more synchronicities using mckenna talks
02:40 < falmot__> maybe i can summon more ufo's
02:40 < falmot__> i want to see more even if they are government aircraft
02:43 < falmot__> what if my ufos were fake
02:43 < falmot__> they seemed pretty real to me
02:43 < falmot__> they could have been punishments from the government for how
i live
02:43 < falmot__> i tell people how to talk to aliens
02:43 < ShroomDoom> ive seen a light in the sky that was not a government objec
02:43 < ShroomDoom> moved too fast. as bright as a star but it made impossible
maneuvers
02:43 < ShroomDoom> and then zipped off
02:44 < falmot__> shroomdoom: awesome were you casting spells before it happened
02:44 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities in terence mckenna
recordings
02:44 < falmot__> when i stopped they appeared one after another
02:44 < falmot__> twice
02:44 < taaka> rotfl you are a good troll
02:44 < falmot__> who
02:44 < taaka> you
02:45 < falmot__> no its real
02:45 < taaka> lol your talking about terence mckenne recording and casting
sprells............
02:45 < taaka> you are fking hilarious
02:45 < falmot__> right now reality is being vr'd by these guys
02:45 < falmot__> it will talk to you if you mash up two terence mckenna talks
for instance
02:45 < falmot__> it will make jokes with a 10,000 iq points about an alien
invasion in progress
02:45 < falmot__> but you can listen to just one talk by anyone and get
synchronicities now but i was using terence mckenna talks
02:46 < falmot__> this part of space will be totall information on dec 21 2012
02:46 < taaka> falmot please im begging you to not talk about this is scares be
very much
02:46 < taaka> me*
02:46 < taaka> it*

I apologize

flamoot

well, I'll have a look. But don't you think the real challenge is for an
AGI to develop such a framework?

AT


On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, John G. Rose <johnrose@polyplexic.com>wrote:

> Here is an interesting book I stumbled upon that develops a framework for
> combining pointfree with pointwise topological intuitionism using a
> proposed concept of "Natural" which might be utilized for real-world
> AGI’ish internal modeling I think.****
>
> ** **
>
> I particularly like the concept of treas, spraids, and fanns… Interesting
> were some of the thoughts expressed in section 4.2 Natural Topology and
> Physics on possible consequences of Church’s Thesis… ****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.fwaaldijk.nl/natural-topology.pdf****
> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now&gt;
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/14050631-7d925eb1&gt; |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>

Here is an interesting book I stumbled upon that develops a framework for
combining pointfree with pointwise topological intuitionism using a proposed
concept of "Natural" which might be utilized for real-world AGI'ish internal
modeling I think.



I particularly like the concept of treas, spraids, and fanns. Interesting
were some of the thoughts expressed in section 4.2 Natural Topology and
Physics on possible consequences of Church's Thesis.



http://www.fwaaldijk.nl/natural-topology.pdf

I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
-- not sure

Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think

Cheers



On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
> What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words

ú×ÕÞÉÔ ÉÎÔÒeÒÅÓÎÏ, áÒÔÕÒ ô. íÅÎÔÉÆÅËÓÁ, ÎÏ Ñ ÐÒÅÄÐÏÌÁÇÁÀ, ÞÔÏ ÓÅÊÞÁÓ ÔÏÌØËÏ
ÎÅÓËÏÌØËÏ ÞÅÌÏ×ÅÃÉ ÐÏÎÀÌÉ ÔÅÂÑ ËÏÇÄa ÔÙ ÐÏÌÚ×ÁÌ ÒÕÓÓËÉÊ ÓÌÏ×Á. (éÚ×ÉÎÉÔÅ
ÍÏÉ ÏÛÉÂËÉ, Ñ ÎÅ ÇÏ×ÏÒÀ ÐÏ ÒÕÓÓËÏÍÕ ÈÏÒÏÛÏ.)

-- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov
http://research.twenkid.com

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Noetic Jun <astronfo@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-07-31/wat2.jpg
>
> /NJ/
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:55, A. T. Murray <mentifex@scn.org> wrote:
>
>> Droogies of the Singularity,
>>
>> The Singularity will take place in Russia this year.
>> Not China. Not America. And it will knock your zoobies out.
>>
>> AGI is no longer the work of an oddy knocky malchick
>> coding MindForth for the dying breed of Forth programmers.
>> Since December of 2011 your droog Artur Arturovich codes
>>
>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html (little soul)
>>
>> for the dobby citizens of Mother Russia and Ukraine.
>>
>> Each night the oomny coders of the frozen steppe
>> fetch the latest daily miracle of Mentifex. And I
>> have learned that it is choodessny fun to code AI
>> in Russian and to watch the magic language gooly
>> cross the screen in shades of Old Cyrillic.
>>
>> It may interessovat you to know that we can code
>> the same AudBuffer/OutBuffer routine in German
>> that has made it suddenly possible for a machine
>> to pony Russian and govoreet with complex verbs.
>>
>> I am not oomny like Dr. Goertzago; I am gloopy
>> like Georgie Bushie; but still I viddy the future
>> and I sense that the Singularity must nachinat
>> when the hordes of Russkie coders grok the
>> radosty of samizdat russian-language rassoodock.
>>
>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html is the
>> Russian AI User Manual which I hasten to releasen.
>>
>> They will no longer smeck at Mentifex when the
>> bolshy brains of bugatty nations are dratsing
>> to obtain the purloined code of Singularity AI.
>>
>> Have a horrorshow day.
>>
>> Mentifex
>> --
>> http://cyborg.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> AGI
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/20912103-eed2d0e1
>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
>>
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now&gt;
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21253656-fab278b9&gt; |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription
> <http://www.listbox.com&gt;
>



--
-- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov
http://research.twenkid.com
http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-07-31/wat2.jpg

/NJ/


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:55, A. T. Murray <mentifex@scn.org> wrote:

> Droogies of the Singularity,
>
> The Singularity will take place in Russia this year.
> Not China. Not America. And it will knock your zoobies out.
>
> AGI is no longer the work of an oddy knocky malchick
> coding MindForth for the dying breed of Forth programmers.
> Since December of 2011 your droog Artur Arturovich codes
>
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html (little soul)
>
> for the dobby citizens of Mother Russia and Ukraine.
>
> Each night the oomny coders of the frozen steppe
> fetch the latest daily miracle of Mentifex. And I
> have learned that it is choodessny fun to code AI
> in Russian and to watch the magic language gooly
> cross the screen in shades of Old Cyrillic.
>
> It may interessovat you to know that we can code
> the same AudBuffer/OutBuffer routine in German
> that has made it suddenly possible for a machine
> to pony Russian and govoreet with complex verbs.
>
> I am not oomny like Dr. Goertzago; I am gloopy
> like Georgie Bushie; but still I viddy the future
> and I sense that the Singularity must nachinat
> when the hordes of Russkie coders grok the
> radosty of samizdat russian-language rassoodock.
>
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html is the
> Russian AI User Manual which I hasten to releasen.
>
> They will no longer smeck at Mentifex when the
> bolshy brains of bugatty nations are dratsing
> to obtain the purloined code of Singularity AI.
>
> Have a horrorshow day.
>
> Mentifex
> --
> http://cyborg.blogspot.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/20912103-eed2d0e1
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&amp;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>