Slashdot Mirror

Here is the relevant scientific paper.

Everything a computer does is automated reasoning. Different people have different definitions of 'intelligence,' but rarely does it include depth first search.

I suggest you stop messing around with encyclopedias and start reading journals. Here is a good place to start, as mentioned earlier.

Well if you don't understand how Prolog searches, you don't understand Prolog.

Do you consider a sorting algorithm to be AI? Creating ontology and searching through it does not require intelligence, for reasons similar to those described in this paper.

Well sir, if you are interested in discussing innate talent, then you ought to start here, which evidence suggests it is mostly a myth. When investigated, there is little real evidence for innate ability.

http://cogprints.org/4581/
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/overview.html

It is impossible to be a "scientific zealot" by definition. Science is a method, not an ideology.

I'm glad that you're talking about the perfect world and not the real world. Where there are no XP, Agile or scrum zealots, because these are methods. Nor are there Microsoft, Google or Apple Zealots.
You may be a linguist purist and not look at second definitions such as, a fanatical partisan.

Until there was peer-reviewed, material based on repeatable research available showing that this was the case, presumably.

Please read this fair summary of events and then reply back. http://cogprints.org/678/0/ulcers_two.htm
Have you ever published a paper? Have you ever had to exclude a reviewer because they dislike your "science?"
The difficulty with science is that things aren't black and white. Like religion, many dull and dimwitted individuals seize control.

Einstein did not believe in God. He used "God" to describe the nature of the universe, not a personal god.

Would you mind providing a citation for that?
I did a quick google for Einstein Freemason and it appears that he was. They do believe in God.

And how do you know that religious scientists are not impeded? If they aren't, they are extremely good at comparmentalizing {sic} their minds. Cognitive dissonance springs to mind.

Yet until we can do something better than a survey, we can squander time bloviating.

What is the value?

It's an opiate for the people, one of the few pain killers that worked in Marx's time.
Sometimes you have to have faith, even if it's not supported by the current facts.

There have been several reports http://cogprints.org/690/ that show that what men find beautiful is directly correlary to how long it takes the brain to process and encode into memory the face. Beautiful means simple, with few convex polygons. Period.

Ok, then here's the most beautiful woman ever. Mona Lisa or Helen Of Troy have nothing on her:

[O_O]

I'm sure you can't get a face in much less details than that, so it should be beautiful, right?

That said, I'm also pretty sure that it must be a little more than that. I'm not convinced for example that the face of an obese woman would have to have any more lines than that of a thin woman. So it should be beautiful, right? Well, she wouldn't find many boyfriends in today's culture.

There have been several reports http://cogprints.org/690/ that show that what men find beautiful is directly correlary to how long it takes the brain to process and encode into memory the face. Beautiful means simple, with few convex polygons. Period.

In addition to my post above:

here is another data (Nigeria):

Table 1:

Table 1: The Percentage Of Children From Middle
Class Families Who Experienced Menarche At Specific
Age Groups.
% Of Girls Who Attained
Menarche
8 0.25
9 0.98
10 3.92
11 10.54
12 22.55
13 22.55
14 5.39
15 0.98
Percentage of girls without
menarche
32.35

Again: 1%, same number

A good algorithm is important, obviously, but ultimately chess is done by brute force.

Not if you do it by analogy.

"A brain is nothing but a computer and emotions are nothing but a function of the mind"

You have a rather simplistic view that many people in cognitive science and artificial intelligence disagree with. Compute-rs are linear mathematic systems based on logic. There is NO evidence thus far to support that the brain in any way approximates this type of processing other than the fact that neurons fire on and off.

Peter Lynds theorizes that subjective conception of a progressive present moment in time and that of conscious awareness are actually one and the same thing and may be the result neuronal induced nonconscious cognitive manipulation.

http://cogprints.org/3125/

yea yea....I hear ya saying "sounds like a load of crap". Read the paper carefully.

For a review of Peter Turney's group's accomplishment see "AI Breakthrough or the Mismeasure of Machine?"

Here's a copy of the paper. Find for me where it states that the person should be of average intelligence (i've looked and can't find any passage regarding average intelligence).

It's a functional test. Intelligent is as intelligent does. If the inquisitor can't identify an intelligence, then the test can't take place. So i would say that turing's goal in proposing the test entails a requirement of competence.