Posts
Comments
I'm definitely looking for a system where agent can see the other, although just simulating doesn't seem robust enough. I don't understand all the terms here but the gist of it looks as if there isn't a solution that everyone finds satisfactory? As in, there's no agent program that properly matches human intuition?
I would think that the best agent X would cooperate iff (Y cooperates if X cooperates). I didn't see that exactly.. I've tried solving it myself but I'm unsure of how to get past the recursive part.
It looks like I may have to don a decent amount of research before I can properly formulize my thoughts on this. Thank you for the link.
I'm looking for a mathematical model for the prisoners dilemma that results in cooperation. Anyone know where I can find it?
A friend of mine has started going into REM in frequent 5 minutes cycles during the day, in order to boost his learning potential. He developed this via multiple acid trips. Is that safe? It seems like there should be some sort of disadvantage to this system but so far he seems fine.
I'm a computer expert but a brain newbie.
The typical CPU is built from n-NOR, n-NAND, and NOT gates. The NOT gates works like a 1-NAND or a 1-NOR (they're the same thing, electronically). Everything else, including AND and OR, are made from those three. The actual logic only requires NOT and {1 of AND, OR, NAND, NOR}. Notice there are several sets of minimum gates and and a larger set of used gates.
The brain (I'm theorizing now, I have no background in neural chemistry) has a similar set of basic gates that can be organized into a Turing machine, and the gate I described previously is one of them.
admiration != agreement.
I think I've figured out a basic neural gate. I will do my best to describe it.
4 nerves: A,B,X,Y, A has it's tail connected to X. B has it's tail connected to X and Y. If A fires, X fires. If B fires, X and Y fire. If A then B fire, X will fire then Y will fire (X need a small amount of time to reset, so B will only be able to activate Y). If B then A fire, X and Y will fire at the same time.
This feels like it could be similar to the AND circuit. Just like modern electronics need AND, OR, and NOT, if I could find all the nerve gates I'd have all the parts needed to build a brain. (or at least a network based computer)
I have not been able to get rid of internet addiction by blocking or slowing it. Conversely I've had (less than ideal) success with over saturation. I don't think it's a thing I'll get rid of soon, aimless browsing is to much of a quick fix. Lately I've been working on making productivity a quicker fix. Getting a little excited everytime I complete something small, doing a dance when its something bigger, etc.
I've found that having a two computers, one for work and one for play, has helped immensely.
Does "most unexpected" differ from "least predictable" in any way? Seems like a random number generator would match any algorithm around 50% of the time so making an algorithm less predictable than that is impossible no?
Destroying something that would be useful ir even necessary in the future so that you can better get through or perhaps survive the present.
Going to the same college as your high school sweetheart for example. Perhaps it will work out and you won't need the map.
What kind of things override loss of life and and can be widely agreed upon?
Conventional mortality would dictate that the car minimize global loss of life, followed by permanent brain damage, permanent body damage. I think in the future that other algorithms will be illegal but existent.
However. The lives each car would have the most effect on would be those inside of it. So in most situations all actions would be directed towards said persons.