From: Greg A (greg.a@facttechnologies.com)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 07:43:48 MDT
Yes and no.
When I wrote I wrote the original message, I was obviously in a very excited
state. Your way is a much calmer and clearer way of explaining it.
You have to understand that fact-based computation is not the same thing at
its heart as the kind of computing that computers do now. I think that
humans do it routinely as part of our linguistic capabilities, and that it
is essentially a kind of semantic processing.
I'm saying that we have the technology, RIGHT NOW, to build machines that
*accurately* imitate the function of real-world biological neural systems,
and that fact-based computing is the key. (Don't even ask about me about
consciousness. Try asking Searle. :] )
http://www.facttechnologies.com/newworld and
http://www.facttechnologies.com/newworld/diary.html have explanations that
are better than the babble I flooded SL4 with a week ago. That's where you
should look to see the essentials of what I'm pointing out.
- Greg
P.S. I will repost the last message I sent to the Minsky team. I would love
it if anyone can provide ANY verification of what I'm talking about, in part
or in whole. Beating the academic institution to the punch would be a
perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's the Rosetta Stone for my
argument.
P.P.S. We have a LOT longer than 30 days before it would even be possible to
have a network of Saylor-Codd devices do anything resembling brightness on
its own. In the meantime, it is an excellent technology for getting
organizations of humans to work together. This is a technology that can be
deployed very carefully (if I'm even right in the first place).
P.P.P.S. Thanks for your interest. Tell a friend. The suspense of not
knowing whether the math will bear this out is kind of killing me. :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitchell Porter" <mitchtemporarily@hotmail.com>
To: <SL4@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 6:19 AM
Subject: [SL4] Greg A's big idea
>
> He said:
>
> 'The essence of my idea ... is that the Codd
> concept of projection is/(can be) equivalent to
> semantic meaning in fact-based computation
> involving human beings....
> 'What THAT means, is that a team of links humans
> [linked humans? -MP] sharing fact-based data can
> perform fact-based computations much better than
> a pure machine will for the foreseeable future
> (i.e. the next 30 days).'
>
> Let me attempt a translation:
>
> "The SQL operation of 'projection' is similar
> to some semantic operation that human beings
> perform routinely. Networked humans using this
> semantic operation appropriately could outperform
> machines on certain tasks which we presently
> leave entirely to the machines."
>
> Is that a fair summation?
>
> Mitch
>
> (http://198.9.9.13/Groups/LAN/ClassNotes/sql/slide-1.html
> has a straightforward definition of 'projection' in SQL.)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR!
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
> 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2121/6/_/626675/_/955113696/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/975/6/_/626675/_/955115173/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:08 MDT