#56,748 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness

Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 1

We found 1 Reddit mentions of The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness. Here are the top ones.

The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • MADE IN THE USA! All-Natural Sugar Wax Kit made for Men + Women with Fine to Medium Hair.
  • NOT for use on facial/head/nose/ear hair. For facial hair removal, please see our "Hard Wax Kit". For Body Hair Removal of Thick/Coarse Hair Please see our "Spa Wax Kit". Note: If you are in the process of transitioning from shaving to waxing, please use our "Spa Wax" Kit.
  • Microwavable: Quick 30 Second Microwavable Heating. Water Soluble (Washes away with just water). Leaves skin hair free for up to 6 weeks.
  • Unisex: Our Sugar Wax is made for Men + Women with Fine-Medium Body Hair Thickness.
  • Safe and gentle: VidaSleek Sugar Waxing Kit is suitable for hair removal on all skin types; dermatologically tested; hypoallergenic; No synthetic fragrances or colors; Cruelty free.
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMarch 1990
Weight1.45946017444 Pounds
Width1.06 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 1 comment on The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness:

u/aim2free · 1 pointr/singularity

No, I haven't read that, but just checked a summary on wikipedia.

The impression I got that is that it is quite populistic. He doesn't say anything new apart from something I seems to have published about the same time on my blog, this part about accelerated returns. I did my PhD in computational neuroscience and have so far, not heard anyone but my self speculate about this about accelerated returns being of importance to the computational efficiency of the brain[1], so this is interesting. Otherwise (only gave it a quick look through, will likely get the book and read) it seems as he is just repeating things which e.g. Douglas Hofstadter, Gerald Edelman, Daniel Dennet and me (thesis from 2003, chapter 7 speculative part) have written about.

> apparently to give him the resources to put into practice his hypothesis from that book.

Yes, this is my theory as well, to make it appear as he will put into practice the hypotheses from that book.

The employment of him can have many reasons:

  1. to ride on the singularity "AI-hype"
  2. to stop him from actually implement conscious AI.
  3. naïve assumption that he could make it.

    No 1 would simply be a reasonable business image approach. No 2 would be a sensible beings action, as we do not really need any "conscious AI" (unless I am an AI, have A.I. in my middle names though...) to implement the singularity (which is my project). No 3 is also reasonable, as if the google engineers actually had as goal to implement conscious AI and knew how to do it, they wouldn't need Kurzweil.

    However, I suspect that google already know how to implement ethical conscious AI, as when I showed this algorithm from my thesis , he almost instantly refused talking to me more, and said that they can not help me.

    I showed that algorithm for 25 strong AI researchers at a symposium in Palo Alto 2004, and they said, yes, this is it.

    However, I have later refined it and concluded that the "rules" are not needed, these are built in due to the function of the neural system, all the time striving towards consistent solutions. I wrote a semi jokular (best way to hide something, learned from Douglas Adams) approach to almost rule free algorithm in 2011. The disadvantage with this algorithm is that it can trivially be turned evil. By switching the first condition you could implement e.g. Hitler, by switching the second condition you could implement the ordinary governmental politician...

  4. OK, my PhD opponent prof Hava Siegelmann has proved that the neural networks are Super Turing, but not explicitly explained the reason for them being, that is, not in language of "accelerated returns". She is considerably smarter than me, I do not understand the details of the proof.