MIND|CONSTRUCT

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

A link from my discussion on Linkedin

http://www.mindconstruct.com/

"MIND|CONSTRUCT is developing a 'strong-AI engine', a so called AI-mind,
that can be used in (human-like) robotics, healthcare, aerospace
sciences and every other area where 'conscious' man-machine interaction
is of any importance.

The MIND|CONSTRUCT organization is the culmination of many years in
AI-research and the so called 'hard-problems', and the application of
elaborate experience in knowledge-management, for the design and
development of a 'strong-AI engine'."

Evgenii

P.S. This is the link to the discussion but I guess you need to have the
Linkedin account and subscribe to the group

http://www.linkedin.com/e/-gay7jh-h17e0kop-6q/vaq/105949056/134407/77220668/

[meekerdb]

Hmmm. An organization consisting of a CEO, an accountant, and a finance guy that needs
lots of money to develop human level AI.

Brent

[John Mikes]

Evgenii:

are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) mentality discovered in all its details? is it possible to program ALL details into a machine?

We seem to be restricted to our insufficient knowledge of the "so far". All we can artificialize is that sofarness of (human) intelligence. (I emphasize HUMAN  because that's the one we came closest to. Bruno's Universal Machine may know more, but we don't know the Universal Machine. 

JM 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

John,

I am personally pretty skeptical about the project. Yet, in the
discussion on Linkedin, the answers from Hans Peter Willems (CEO) are
interesting. Let us see.

Evgenii

On 28.04.2012 02:49 John Mikes said the following:

> Evgenii:
> are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) mentality discovered
> in all its details? is it possible to program ALL details into a machine?
> We seem to be restricted to our insufficient knowledge of the "so far". All
> we can artificialize is that sofarness of (human) intelligence. (I

> emphasize *HUMAN *because that's the one we came closest to. Bruno's

[Bruno Marchal]

John,

On 28 Apr 2012, at 02:49, John Mikes wrote:

Evgenii:

are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) mentality discovered in all its details? is it possible to program ALL details into a machine?

We seem to be restricted to our insufficient knowledge of the "so far". All we can artificialize is that sofarness of (human) intelligence. (I emphasize HUMAN  because that's the one we came closest to. Bruno's Universal Machine may know more, but we don't know the Universal Machine. 

The universal machine know less, and that is why it is interesting to listen to her. She has far less prejudices.

I am not sure what you mean by "we don't know the universal machine". It seems we know her pretty well, even if we often loss ourselves in the many particulars, and that we have to be vigilant not becoming ourself only a particular machine in a higher organism. 

We are universal machine, before being humans. Of course those who want to control us dislike very much the idea, for obvious reasons.

Bruno

JM 

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hmmm.  An organization consisting of a CEO, an accountant, and a finance guy that needs lots of money to develop human level AI.

Brent

On 4/27/2012 11:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

A link from my discussion on Linkedin

http://www.mindconstruct.com/

"MIND|CONSTRUCT is developing a 'strong-AI engine', a so called AI-mind, that can be used in (human-like) robotics, healthcare, aerospace sciences and every other area where 'conscious' man-machine interaction is of any importance.

The MIND|CONSTRUCT organization is the culmination of many years in AI-research and the so called 'hard-problems', and the application of elaborate experience in knowledge-management, for the design and development of a 'strong-AI engine'."

Evgenii

P.S. This is the link to the discussion but I guess you need to have the Linkedin account and subscribe to the group

http://www.linkedin.com/e/-gay7jh-h17e0kop-6q/vaq/105949056/134407/77220668/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[John Mikes]

Bruno,

I confess to ignorance (not the elegant agnosticism) towards the UM ('you'?).

Are you sure you "know" who you (the UM=you) are?

From your words it looks to me as a "super-dooper" Occam razor, cutting out lots of details and concentrates on the 'essence'? (Those "details" however contribute to the overall complexity - so essential in my personal views).

 

Consequence: NOW I have less faith in the UM and feel it (her?) closer to the conventional sciences - the current level of our getting (mentally) smarter.

Sorry I stuck my nose into something I don't understand - but that's human.

I fancied the UM as something above all of us and our knowble world.

JM

[Bruno Marchal]

John,

On 28 Apr 2012, at 22:51, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno,

I confess to ignorance (not the elegant agnosticism) towards the UM ('you'?).

Are you sure you "know" who you (the UM=you) are?

I don't know who I am. But I am *pretty sure* that you and me are, at the least,  (local) universal machine. Indeed Löbian one: that is: we know that we are (Turing) universal, and we can bet on Church thesis, making us truly universal. Of course we cannot know for sure that Church thesis is true, but there are good evidence, and then we have to postulate principle to progress and make theories (susceptible to be refuted).

Knowing that we are universal machine does neither entail that we are only that, nor does it entail that we know who we are.

From your words it looks to me as a "super-dooper" Occam razor, cutting out lots of details and concentrates on the 'essence'? (Those "details" however contribute to the overall complexity - so essential in my personal views).

Science alway work by simplifying, until we change the theory.

 

Consequence: NOW I have less faith in the UM and feel it (her?) closer to the conventional sciences - the current level of our getting (mentally) smarter.

Sorry I stuck my nose into something I don't understand - but that's human.

No worry. We would not discover anything if we were not stucking our nose in what we don't understand. Not even sure we would go out of our mother's womb :)

I fancied the UM as something above all of us and our knowble world.

In the eight hypostases, that would correspond to arithmetical truth. That is way above us and machines. It is way above the knowable (and probably so, if we assume comp).

No, the UM is almost banal, bacteria are already locally universal machine, and this is illustrated by our own bodies, mainly made of bacteria (I like to see the eukaryotic cells has a vessel of bacterias, perhaps together with one virus (the ancestor of the nucleus, I speculate 'course).

Now, the virgin UM is above us, in some sense, because a programmed UM is very often just a brainwashed UM, by its contingent history and geography, nature and genetics, or even by its malevolent fellow companions ...

Of course, in that sense a baby is above us, the adults.

Best,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/