<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_0052202</id>
	<title>Can Curiosity Be Programmed?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1264694940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>destinyland writes <i>"AI researcher Jurgen Schmidhuber says his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked on problems including artificial ants and even robots that are taught how to tie shoelaces using reinforcement learning, but <a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/ai/build-optimal-scientist-then-retire">he believes algorithms can be written that allow the programming of curiosity itself.</a> 'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising...' He's already created art using algorithmic information theory, and can describe the simple algorithmic principle that underlies subjective beauty, creativity, and curiosity itself. And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>destinyland writes " AI researcher Jurgen Schmidhuber says his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist , then retire .
' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked on problems including artificial ants and even robots that are taught how to tie shoelaces using reinforcement learning , but he believes algorithms can be written that allow the programming of curiosity itself .
'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random , non-arbitrary , regular data that is novel and surprising... ' He 's already created art using algorithmic information theory , and can describe the simple algorithmic principle that underlies subjective beauty , creativity , and curiosity itself .
And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>destinyland writes "AI researcher Jurgen Schmidhuber says his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.
' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked on problems including artificial ants and even robots that are taught how to tie shoelaces using reinforcement learning, but he believes algorithms can be written that allow the programming of curiosity itself.
'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising...' He's already created art using algorithmic information theory, and can describe the simple algorithmic principle that underlies subjective beauty, creativity, and curiosity itself.
And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932106</id>
	<title>Re:There.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>002.5 <strong>Test</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>002.5 Test</tokentext>
<sentencetext>002.5 Test</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933850</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1264696680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.</i></p><p>Um, why?  All you need is a decent compression algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe , observable or otherwise.Um , why ?
All you need is a decent compression algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.Um, why?
All you need is a decent compression algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</id>
	<title>curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt><br>#!/bin/sh<br>for i in who what where when why how; do<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; echo "But $i, dad?"<br>done<br></tt></p><p>I hereby submit this project to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community under the GPL v2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># ! /bin/shfor i in who what where when why how ; do     echo " But $ i , dad ?
" doneI hereby submit this project to the / .
community under the GPL v2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#!/bin/shfor i in who what where when why how; do
    echo "But $i, dad?
"doneI hereby submit this project to the /.
community under the GPL v2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929502</id>
	<title>but can it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>be ported to sega cd?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>be ported to sega cd ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be ported to sega cd?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929474</id>
	<title>No, but it can be beaten out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait, you're not talking about children... nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , you 're not talking about children... nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, you're not talking about children... nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930960</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1264673460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the difference between running/emulating/duplicating and simulation.</p><p>You don't need to simulate every quark of every atom of a car body to have a reasonable car simulator game. You use a simplified model that approximates the reality to a degree that is defined in requirements of the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the difference between running/emulating/duplicating and simulation.You do n't need to simulate every quark of every atom of a car body to have a reasonable car simulator game .
You use a simplified model that approximates the reality to a degree that is defined in requirements of the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the difference between running/emulating/duplicating and simulation.You don't need to simulate every quark of every atom of a car body to have a reasonable car simulator game.
You use a simplified model that approximates the reality to a degree that is defined in requirements of the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933108</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#!/bin/sh<br>cat &amp;<br>$STATE = $1<br>if [ $STATE -eq "curiosity" ] ; then<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; kill $!<br>fi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># ! /bin/shcat &amp; $ STATE = $ 1if [ $ STATE -eq " curiosity " ] ; then         kill $ ! fi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#!/bin/shcat &amp;$STATE = $1if [ $STATE -eq "curiosity" ] ; then
        kill $!fi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931032</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing 3d universe in 7+</title>
	<author>ras1600</author>
	<datestamp>1264674180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The theory is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cute at best, but unworkable.</p></div><p>Over the eons simple 2d images and more recently 3d images &amp; holograms have been accepted as reasonable representations.  Would a complete 3 dimensional representation be acceptable ?

</p><p>Would not leveraging the 7+ additional string/M-theory folded dimensions not be within our universe?   Would suggest that were are already doing so with 1984+ quantum teleportation, susequent quantum cryptography, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

</p><p>Presume if not computing digitally with bits and vast series of same but instead NKS cellular automata relations there, that far less would required to represent all that "exists" and is experienced, known &amp; interacted with in the our 3 extant dimensions.

</p><p>As there would in essence be no distance between lattice of the subset of points leveraged to represent our perceived universe across the other dimensions Wolfram-Alpha-esk computation there should be vastly faster than that experienced in the slower paced space time in our lesser reality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it isn't funny</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory is ... cute at best , but unworkable.Over the eons simple 2d images and more recently 3d images &amp; holograms have been accepted as reasonable representations .
Would a complete 3 dimensional representation be acceptable ?
Would not leveraging the 7 + additional string/M-theory folded dimensions not be within our universe ?
Would suggest that were are already doing so with 1984 + quantum teleportation , susequent quantum cryptography , etc .. . Presume if not computing digitally with bits and vast series of same but instead NKS cellular automata relations there , that far less would required to represent all that " exists " and is experienced , known &amp; interacted with in the our 3 extant dimensions .
As there would in essence be no distance between lattice of the subset of points leveraged to represent our perceived universe across the other dimensions Wolfram-Alpha-esk computation there should be vastly faster than that experienced in the slower paced space time in our lesser reality.If you have to explain why a joke is funny , it is n't funny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory is ... cute at best, but unworkable.Over the eons simple 2d images and more recently 3d images &amp; holograms have been accepted as reasonable representations.
Would a complete 3 dimensional representation be acceptable ?
Would not leveraging the 7+ additional string/M-theory folded dimensions not be within our universe?
Would suggest that were are already doing so with 1984+ quantum teleportation, susequent quantum cryptography, etc ...

Presume if not computing digitally with bits and vast series of same but instead NKS cellular automata relations there, that far less would required to represent all that "exists" and is experienced, known &amp; interacted with in the our 3 extant dimensions.
As there would in essence be no distance between lattice of the subset of points leveraged to represent our perceived universe across the other dimensions Wolfram-Alpha-esk computation there should be vastly faster than that experienced in the slower paced space time in our lesser reality.If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it isn't funny
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932566</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1264690500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't necessarily need to have explicit randomization. An algorithm that exhibits <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos\_theory" title="wikipedia.org">chaotic behavior</a> [wikipedia.org] is just as efficient, and more elegant, as we have yet to identify a 'randomizer' in our own brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't necessarily need to have explicit randomization .
An algorithm that exhibits chaotic behavior [ wikipedia.org ] is just as efficient , and more elegant , as we have yet to identify a 'randomizer ' in our own brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't necessarily need to have explicit randomization.
An algorithm that exhibits chaotic behavior [wikipedia.org] is just as efficient, and more elegant, as we have yet to identify a 'randomizer' in our own brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930628</id>
	<title>Intuition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Curiosity really 'Intuition'?  A part of the brain who's function it is to compress all the  data from hearing and eyes to a lower 'bitrate' and to fill in the blanks between sensors by pattern-matching.</p><p>Imo, what you need to write to simulate 'Curiosity' is  pattern-matching software:  taking input from many sources (sensors) and  try to find a match between them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Curiosity really 'Intuition ' ?
A part of the brain who 's function it is to compress all the data from hearing and eyes to a lower 'bitrate ' and to fill in the blanks between sensors by pattern-matching.Imo , what you need to write to simulate 'Curiosity ' is pattern-matching software : taking input from many sources ( sensors ) and try to find a match between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Curiosity really 'Intuition'?
A part of the brain who's function it is to compress all the  data from hearing and eyes to a lower 'bitrate' and to fill in the blanks between sensors by pattern-matching.Imo, what you need to write to simulate 'Curiosity' is  pattern-matching software:  taking input from many sources (sensors) and  try to find a match between them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932394</id>
	<title>Oh, no...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1264689600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program<br>Here come the Matrix analogies for the rest of the posts here on end....!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer programHere come the Matrix analogies for the rest of the posts here on end.... !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer programHere come the Matrix analogies for the rest of the posts here on end....!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930858</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>cs02rm0</author>
	<datestamp>1264671960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TDD.<br> <br>
Can curiosity be <i>tested</i>?<br> <br>
In the abscence of a (Turing-style?) test then how can we say this script isn't a satisfactory implementation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>TDD .
Can curiosity be tested ?
In the abscence of a ( Turing-style ?
) test then how can we say this script is n't a satisfactory implementation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TDD.
Can curiosity be tested?
In the abscence of a (Turing-style?
) test then how can we say this script isn't a satisfactory implementation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30944038</id>
	<title>A limited robot scientist already exists</title>
	<author>Sinical</author>
	<datestamp>1264685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a robotic scientist called ADAM that investigates yeast genetics (<a href="http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dcswww/Research/bio/robotsci/" title="aber.ac.uk">http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dcswww/Research/bio/robotsci/</a> [aber.ac.uk]).  There was a pretty cool paper in Computer a few months ago.  The robot actively tried to devise new theories and produce experiments (it's hooked up to a bunch of yeast-genetics-investigatory stuff) to investigate those theories.  As I remember, most of the theories turned out to be true and were pretty novel (function of various genes).  The researchers double checked several (or all?) of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a robotic scientist called ADAM that investigates yeast genetics ( http : //www.aber.ac.uk/ ~ dcswww/Research/bio/robotsci/ [ aber.ac.uk ] ) .
There was a pretty cool paper in Computer a few months ago .
The robot actively tried to devise new theories and produce experiments ( it 's hooked up to a bunch of yeast-genetics-investigatory stuff ) to investigate those theories .
As I remember , most of the theories turned out to be true and were pretty novel ( function of various genes ) .
The researchers double checked several ( or all ?
) of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a robotic scientist called ADAM that investigates yeast genetics (http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dcswww/Research/bio/robotsci/ [aber.ac.uk]).
There was a pretty cool paper in Computer a few months ago.
The robot actively tried to devise new theories and produce experiments (it's hooked up to a bunch of yeast-genetics-investigatory stuff) to investigate those theories.
As I remember, most of the theories turned out to be true and were pretty novel (function of various genes).
The researchers double checked several (or all?
) of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931858</id>
	<title>try it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.</p></div><p>He should try to do some actual computational physics/chemistry. The amount of processor power you need to simulate only tiny structures is so enormous that he'd be thrown back to reality really quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.He should try to do some actual computational physics/chemistry .
The amount of processor power you need to simulate only tiny structures is so enormous that he 'd be thrown back to reality really quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.He should try to do some actual computational physics/chemistry.
The amount of processor power you need to simulate only tiny structures is so enormous that he'd be thrown back to reality really quickly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930112</id>
	<title>Curiosity can be deprogrammed - watch fox news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The set up was so perfect, someone had to say it!</p><p>Note to the deprogrammed - this is not a pro-anything joke, just an anti-fox-news joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The set up was so perfect , someone had to say it ! Note to the deprogrammed - this is not a pro-anything joke , just an anti-fox-news joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The set up was so perfect, someone had to say it!Note to the deprogrammed - this is not a pro-anything joke, just an anti-fox-news joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931448</id>
	<title>Wrong Perspective</title>
	<author>CxDoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264678800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not curiosity that is hard to achieve - brute forcing is equivalent to curiosity upped to 11. It is filtration of resulting data that is hard.</p><p>And it is hard not only because there is so much that can be said about anything, but because what is relevant depends on what is being looked for. Which is a bit circular, like in self referential.</p><p>In other words, what is the metric for curiosity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not curiosity that is hard to achieve - brute forcing is equivalent to curiosity upped to 11 .
It is filtration of resulting data that is hard.And it is hard not only because there is so much that can be said about anything , but because what is relevant depends on what is being looked for .
Which is a bit circular , like in self referential.In other words , what is the metric for curiosity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not curiosity that is hard to achieve - brute forcing is equivalent to curiosity upped to 11.
It is filtration of resulting data that is hard.And it is hard not only because there is so much that can be said about anything, but because what is relevant depends on what is being looked for.
Which is a bit circular, like in self referential.In other words, what is the metric for curiosity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930216</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 print "What does that this button do?"<br>20 GOTO 10</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 print " What does that this button do ?
" 20 GOTO 10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 print "What does that this button do?
"20 GOTO 10</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930416</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1264709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't just need to be a bit random. It will need to be capable of spotting (and following up) on false leads. Making mistakes. Look at John Nash. Look at Kepler (yes, that Kepler) who spent most of his time trying to make the planets' orbits "fit inside" his crazy "Harmonices Mundi" theories. A bit of geometry (Kepler solids) that he tried to extended to "harmonic analysis to music, meteorology and astrology; harmony resulted from the tones made by the souls of heavenly bodies&mdash;and in the case of astrology, the interaction between those tones and human souls" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonices\_Mundi).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't just need to be a bit random .
It will need to be capable of spotting ( and following up ) on false leads .
Making mistakes .
Look at John Nash .
Look at Kepler ( yes , that Kepler ) who spent most of his time trying to make the planets ' orbits " fit inside " his crazy " Harmonices Mundi " theories .
A bit of geometry ( Kepler solids ) that he tried to extended to " harmonic analysis to music , meteorology and astrology ; harmony resulted from the tones made by the souls of heavenly bodies    and in the case of astrology , the interaction between those tones and human souls " ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonices \ _Mundi ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't just need to be a bit random.
It will need to be capable of spotting (and following up) on false leads.
Making mistakes.
Look at John Nash.
Look at Kepler (yes, that Kepler) who spent most of his time trying to make the planets' orbits "fit inside" his crazy "Harmonices Mundi" theories.
A bit of geometry (Kepler solids) that he tried to extended to "harmonic analysis to music, meteorology and astrology; harmony resulted from the tones made by the souls of heavenly bodies—and in the case of astrology, the interaction between those tones and human souls" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonices\_Mundi).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932006</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1264686720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually they grow old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually they grow old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually they grow old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930298</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>precariousgray</author>
	<datestamp>1264622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it looks like we're going to have to get at the garbage file.  The way I figure it, after we have it on hand, we'll be able to read all the intra-office gossip going around the building containing the server our universe is running on, then we can figure out who the real PEBCAKs are.  Yeah, you see, after that we're going to hack this Gibson to commandeer another network-attached universe-computing machine, and use that to start up our own botnet in the <i>real</i> world.  From there, the possibilities are limitless!<br> <br>

Our Beowulf cluster universe computing overlords will never know what hit 'em!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it looks like we 're going to have to get at the garbage file .
The way I figure it , after we have it on hand , we 'll be able to read all the intra-office gossip going around the building containing the server our universe is running on , then we can figure out who the real PEBCAKs are .
Yeah , you see , after that we 're going to hack this Gibson to commandeer another network-attached universe-computing machine , and use that to start up our own botnet in the real world .
From there , the possibilities are limitless !
Our Beowulf cluster universe computing overlords will never know what hit 'em !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it looks like we're going to have to get at the garbage file.
The way I figure it, after we have it on hand, we'll be able to read all the intra-office gossip going around the building containing the server our universe is running on, then we can figure out who the real PEBCAKs are.
Yeah, you see, after that we're going to hack this Gibson to commandeer another network-attached universe-computing machine, and use that to start up our own botnet in the real world.
From there, the possibilities are limitless!
Our Beowulf cluster universe computing overlords will never know what hit 'em!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929964</id>
	<title>Of course it can.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course curiosity can be programmed. What are humans if not big, fleshy, biological machines of sorts?  Granted we do not work like computers do, but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it wouldn't work.</p><p>Of course, some people will handwave with "the soul" or silly objections by Searle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course curiosity can be programmed .
What are humans if not big , fleshy , biological machines of sorts ?
Granted we do not work like computers do , but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it would n't work.Of course , some people will handwave with " the soul " or silly objections by Searle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course curiosity can be programmed.
What are humans if not big, fleshy, biological machines of sorts?
Granted we do not work like computers do, but the underlying processes are still structured and computational--if the brain were chaotic it wouldn't work.Of course, some people will handwave with "the soul" or silly objections by Searle...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930800</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>cortesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1264671060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931040</id>
	<title>Yeah right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another AI fairytale...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another AI fairytale.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another AI fairytale...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934690</id>
	<title>Re:All well and good but what about a soul?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is a soul?</i></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Soul\_of\_a\_New\_Machine" title="wikipedia.org">The Soul of a New Machine</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Soul" title="merriam-webster.com">Main Entry: soul</a> [merriam-webster.com]<br>Function: noun<br>Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English swol; akin to Old High German sula soul<br>Date: before 12th century<br>1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life<br>2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b<br>3 : a person's total self<br>4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader<br>5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor<br>6 : person <br>7 : personification <br>8 a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers b : negritude c : soul music d : soul food e : soul brother</p></div></blockquote><p> <i>Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that they can actually drive a sane person to insanity.</i></p><p>I don't think you'll find any psychologists who agree with that, unless you think Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is insanity. Insanity is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Yes, give a person the right drug and they will become temporarily insane, but it is an artificial insanity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a soul ? The Soul of a New Machine [ wikipedia.org ] Main Entry : soul [ merriam-webster.com ] Function : nounEtymology : Middle English soule , from Old English swol ; akin to Old High German sula soulDate : before 12th century1 : the immaterial essence , animating principle , or actuating cause of an individual life2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings , all rational and spiritual beings , or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b3 : a person 's total self4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor6 : person 7 : personification 8 a : a strong positive feeling ( as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor ) conveyed especially by black American performers b : negritude c : soul music d : soul food e : soul brother Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that they can actually drive a sane person to insanity.I do n't think you 'll find any psychologists who agree with that , unless you think Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is insanity .
Insanity is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain .
Yes , give a person the right drug and they will become temporarily insane , but it is an artificial insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a soul?The Soul of a New Machine [wikipedia.org]  Main Entry: soul [merriam-webster.com]Function: nounEtymology: Middle English soule, from Old English swol; akin to Old High German sula soulDate: before 12th century1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b3 : a person's total self4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor6 : person 7 : personification 8 a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers b : negritude c : soul music d : soul food e : soul brother Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that they can actually drive a sane person to insanity.I don't think you'll find any psychologists who agree with that, unless you think Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is insanity.
Insanity is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.
Yes, give a person the right drug and they will become temporarily insane, but it is an artificial insanity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930088</id>
	<title>Sure.</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1264619040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's\_three\_laws" title="wikipedia.org">third law</a> [wikipedia.org]:<blockquote><div><p>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Perl.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke 's third law [ wikipedia.org ] : Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Perl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's
third law [wikipedia.org]:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Perl.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929628</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264613880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, but put simply, he's just saying that there is no such thing as randomness and that with absolute knowledge of all the variables, one could predict with certainty the exact state of any object at any given period of time from now in a similar way to how you could crudely work out how long it's going to take a ball to hit the ground when dropped from a certain height with basic high school Newtonian physics.</p><p>That relies on there being no randomness in the universe of course...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but put simply , he 's just saying that there is no such thing as randomness and that with absolute knowledge of all the variables , one could predict with certainty the exact state of any object at any given period of time from now in a similar way to how you could crudely work out how long it 's going to take a ball to hit the ground when dropped from a certain height with basic high school Newtonian physics.That relies on there being no randomness in the universe of course.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but put simply, he's just saying that there is no such thing as randomness and that with absolute knowledge of all the variables, one could predict with certainty the exact state of any object at any given period of time from now in a similar way to how you could crudely work out how long it's going to take a ball to hit the ground when dropped from a certain height with basic high school Newtonian physics.That relies on there being no randomness in the universe of course...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931370</id>
	<title>an Abomination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This robot will turn into a navel gazing philospher trying to figure out the meaning of his programming.  Recursiveness ftw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This robot will turn into a navel gazing philospher trying to figure out the meaning of his programming .
Recursiveness ftw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This robot will turn into a navel gazing philospher trying to figure out the meaning of his programming.
Recursiveness ftw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932442</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264689840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But why ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30939208</id>
	<title>G&#246;del's incompleteness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program."</p><p>Doesn't it contradict the G&#246;del's incompleteness theorems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; possibility that the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program .
" Does n't it contradict the G   del 's incompleteness theorems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.
"Doesn't it contradict the Gödel's incompleteness theorems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929662</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own. Why make such an assumption? I mean, if we're going to go so far as to hypothesize a computer built outside of our own universe, why couldn't this outside place obey radically different rules than our own universe? Suppose that outside our universe, there is no such thing as time. Calculations are put into the computer and the result returns instantly. While it is true that theoretically you could still never completely match the universe, as your results would change it and then you would need to recalculate, each run of the calculations would surely get you closer to a true solution. And, if it turns out that our universe is just slightly "grainy" at extremely small distances - if the Planck length or something along those lines ends up quantizing distance in our universe - you would eventually reach the correct answer. Just as the pattern of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... will eventually reach 1 if you assume you are rounding the final answer to the nearest thousandth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own .
Why make such an assumption ?
I mean , if we 're going to go so far as to hypothesize a computer built outside of our own universe , why could n't this outside place obey radically different rules than our own universe ?
Suppose that outside our universe , there is no such thing as time .
Calculations are put into the computer and the result returns instantly .
While it is true that theoretically you could still never completely match the universe , as your results would change it and then you would need to recalculate , each run of the calculations would surely get you closer to a true solution .
And , if it turns out that our universe is just slightly " grainy " at extremely small distances - if the Planck length or something along those lines ends up quantizing distance in our universe - you would eventually reach the correct answer .
Just as the pattern of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... will eventually reach 1 if you assume you are rounding the final answer to the nearest thousandth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own.
Why make such an assumption?
I mean, if we're going to go so far as to hypothesize a computer built outside of our own universe, why couldn't this outside place obey radically different rules than our own universe?
Suppose that outside our universe, there is no such thing as time.
Calculations are put into the computer and the result returns instantly.
While it is true that theoretically you could still never completely match the universe, as your results would change it and then you would need to recalculate, each run of the calculations would surely get you closer to a true solution.
And, if it turns out that our universe is just slightly "grainy" at extremely small distances - if the Planck length or something along those lines ends up quantizing distance in our universe - you would eventually reach the correct answer.
Just as the pattern of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... will eventually reach 1 if you assume you are rounding the final answer to the nearest thousandth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929986</id>
	<title>Fp Gtrollkore?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Percent of t4e *BSD result o!f a quarrel and exciting;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Percent of t4e * BSD result o ! f a quarrel and exciting ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Percent of t4e *BSD result o!f a quarrel and exciting;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.31019888</id>
	<title>best handwriting recognizers, but not universal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Submitted as a comment to H+ Magazine by Fred (not verified) on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 07:44:</p><p>His team now has the best method for connected handwriting recognition. It uses a self-learning recurrent neural network that won several handwriting competitions at ICDAR 2009. But when you study papers on this at http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/rnn.html you'll find the recurrent network is not trained by those super-universal learning algorithms, but by "greedy" techniques such as gradient descent. Even in his own lab, being practical is sometimes preferred over being theoretically optimal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Submitted as a comment to H + Magazine by Fred ( not verified ) on Sat , 01/30/2010 - 07 : 44 : His team now has the best method for connected handwriting recognition .
It uses a self-learning recurrent neural network that won several handwriting competitions at ICDAR 2009 .
But when you study papers on this at http : //www.idsia.ch/ ~ juergen/rnn.html you 'll find the recurrent network is not trained by those super-universal learning algorithms , but by " greedy " techniques such as gradient descent .
Even in his own lab , being practical is sometimes preferred over being theoretically optimal : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Submitted as a comment to H+ Magazine by Fred (not verified) on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 07:44:His team now has the best method for connected handwriting recognition.
It uses a self-learning recurrent neural network that won several handwriting competitions at ICDAR 2009.
But when you study papers on this at http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/rnn.html you'll find the recurrent network is not trained by those super-universal learning algorithms, but by "greedy" techniques such as gradient descent.
Even in his own lab, being practical is sometimes preferred over being theoretically optimal :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929658</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A deterministic universe is interesting from the 'do we have free will?'-perspective, but the whole uncertainty principle ruins our attempts to simulate the universe even if we could build one 'outside' reality. Frustrating really, we are surrounded by very uncooperative hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A deterministic universe is interesting from the 'do we have free will ?
'-perspective , but the whole uncertainty principle ruins our attempts to simulate the universe even if we could build one 'outside ' reality .
Frustrating really , we are surrounded by very uncooperative hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A deterministic universe is interesting from the 'do we have free will?
'-perspective, but the whole uncertainty principle ruins our attempts to simulate the universe even if we could build one 'outside' reality.
Frustrating really, we are surrounded by very uncooperative hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930980</id>
	<title>Let's program our computers to date girls.</title>
	<author>PDX</author>
	<datestamp>1264673700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's program our computers to date girls. This explains why there are so many virgins on slashdot. Sometimes a little investigation can be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's program our computers to date girls .
This explains why there are so many virgins on slashdot .
Sometimes a little investigation can be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's program our computers to date girls.
This explains why there are so many virgins on slashdot.
Sometimes a little investigation can be a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931270</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264677000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entire universe CAN be computed. You'd need a computer the size of the universe, with the same laws and state. In fact, our universe exactly fits the requirements, and is computing what will happen right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire universe CAN be computed .
You 'd need a computer the size of the universe , with the same laws and state .
In fact , our universe exactly fits the requirements , and is computing what will happen right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire universe CAN be computed.
You'd need a computer the size of the universe, with the same laws and state.
In fact, our universe exactly fits the requirements, and is computing what will happen right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930826</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>Phoe6</author>
	<datestamp>1264671600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The previous guy must have been a kernel hacker, thats why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The previous guy must have been a kernel hacker , thats why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The previous guy must have been a kernel hacker, thats why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930160</id>
	<title>I read that a bit wrong at first</title>
	<author>FalseModesty</author>
	<datestamp>1264620240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."

Woo hoo!  The Robotic Cognitive Professor worked!  Oh, wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist , then retire .
' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked ... " Woo hoo !
The Robotic Cognitive Professor worked !
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"his main scientific ambition 'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.
' The Cognitive Robotics professor has worked ..."

Woo hoo!
The Robotic Cognitive Professor worked!
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930306</id>
	<title>Guys</title>
	<author>COFFEESLEEP</author>
	<datestamp>1264622160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've devised an algorithm that tells me with 100\% certainty that this guy's ego is way too far up his ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've devised an algorithm that tells me with 100 \ % certainty that this guy 's ego is way too far up his ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've devised an algorithm that tells me with 100\% certainty that this guy's ego is way too far up his ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929742</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1264615020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  I hereby submit this project to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community under the GPL v2.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Why not the GPLv3 ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hereby submit this project to the / .
community under the GPL v2 .
Why not the GPLv3 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I hereby submit this project to the /.
community under the GPL v2.
Why not the GPLv3 ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931154</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>codeButcher</author>
	<datestamp>1264675380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and then some of us think that the universe is in fact a computation.
</p><p>Here are some 1999 movies that explore this idea: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/</a> [imdb.com], <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/</a> [imdb.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and then some of us think that the universe is in fact a computation .
Here are some 1999 movies that explore this idea : http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ [ imdb.com ] , http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/ [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and then some of us think that the universe is in fact a computation.
Here are some 1999 movies that explore this idea: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ [imdb.com], http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/ [imdb.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931922</id>
	<title>Re:There.</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1264685940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>001 Gather data <br>

002 Hypothesise <br>

<b>003 Profit</b></p> </div><p>I fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>001 Gather data 002 Hypothesise 003 Profit I fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>001 Gather data 

002 Hypothesise 

003 Profit I fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933252</id>
	<title>Re:All well and good but what about a soul?</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1264694340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I had a revelation the other day.  I used to scoff at your type. The ones that believed in the holy trinity of the cognitive; the brain, the mind, and the soul. And for years I would scoff at your ideas and say that it's simply all the brain, and that everything else doesn't really exist. Then I thought about the chinese room a bit. Before I would say that, of course the man doesn't know chinese, but the book does. <br> <br>
And then it hit me. It's not the book, nor the words, nor the ink on the page, but the pattern of the book that understands chinese. And the parallel here is that the human brain is just meat that holds a pattern, a configuration, a setting of synapses, chemicals, and whatnot. The mind is not the brain, the brain is not the mind, but the mind exists within the brain. <br> <br>
Similarly, part of that pattern is the bit that gives us our conscious/gutcheck/insticts/morals/etc. which makes up the soul. It's not that these things don't exist, but that they've been improperly defined. <br> <br> <br>
But anyway, scoff scoffity scoff, we've got three laws that should be able to handle that issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I had a revelation the other day .
I used to scoff at your type .
The ones that believed in the holy trinity of the cognitive ; the brain , the mind , and the soul .
And for years I would scoff at your ideas and say that it 's simply all the brain , and that everything else does n't really exist .
Then I thought about the chinese room a bit .
Before I would say that , of course the man does n't know chinese , but the book does .
And then it hit me .
It 's not the book , nor the words , nor the ink on the page , but the pattern of the book that understands chinese .
And the parallel here is that the human brain is just meat that holds a pattern , a configuration , a setting of synapses , chemicals , and whatnot .
The mind is not the brain , the brain is not the mind , but the mind exists within the brain .
Similarly , part of that pattern is the bit that gives us our conscious/gutcheck/insticts/morals/etc .
which makes up the soul .
It 's not that these things do n't exist , but that they 've been improperly defined .
But anyway , scoff scoffity scoff , we 've got three laws that should be able to handle that issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I had a revelation the other day.
I used to scoff at your type.
The ones that believed in the holy trinity of the cognitive; the brain, the mind, and the soul.
And for years I would scoff at your ideas and say that it's simply all the brain, and that everything else doesn't really exist.
Then I thought about the chinese room a bit.
Before I would say that, of course the man doesn't know chinese, but the book does.
And then it hit me.
It's not the book, nor the words, nor the ink on the page, but the pattern of the book that understands chinese.
And the parallel here is that the human brain is just meat that holds a pattern, a configuration, a setting of synapses, chemicals, and whatnot.
The mind is not the brain, the brain is not the mind, but the mind exists within the brain.
Similarly, part of that pattern is the bit that gives us our conscious/gutcheck/insticts/morals/etc.
which makes up the soul.
It's not that these things don't exist, but that they've been improperly defined.
But anyway, scoff scoffity scoff, we've got three laws that should be able to handle that issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30943572</id>
	<title>Halting Problem and Free Will</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1264682760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;You can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.</p><p>What if the universe was made up by nothing but an (intelligent) bowling ball traveling through otherwise empty space? It's pretty easy to figure out where you'll be in 10 years.</p><p>That said, the whole computability argument is bunk, since the Halting Problem tells us that there are some things that are just not computable. If we have a universe consisting of nothing but a pool table and some (intelligent) billiard balls, we can predict the future to any arbitrary degree of accuracy. But if these same billiard balls are programmed to never go where they're supposed to go, then the result is indeterminate, as in the halting program.</p><p>This is actually the reason why I believe in Free Will. Determinism is provably impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; You ca n't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.What if the universe was made up by nothing but an ( intelligent ) bowling ball traveling through otherwise empty space ?
It 's pretty easy to figure out where you 'll be in 10 years.That said , the whole computability argument is bunk , since the Halting Problem tells us that there are some things that are just not computable .
If we have a universe consisting of nothing but a pool table and some ( intelligent ) billiard balls , we can predict the future to any arbitrary degree of accuracy .
But if these same billiard balls are programmed to never go where they 're supposed to go , then the result is indeterminate , as in the halting program.This is actually the reason why I believe in Free Will .
Determinism is provably impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;You can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.What if the universe was made up by nothing but an (intelligent) bowling ball traveling through otherwise empty space?
It's pretty easy to figure out where you'll be in 10 years.That said, the whole computability argument is bunk, since the Halting Problem tells us that there are some things that are just not computable.
If we have a universe consisting of nothing but a pool table and some (intelligent) billiard balls, we can predict the future to any arbitrary degree of accuracy.
But if these same billiard balls are programmed to never go where they're supposed to go, then the result is indeterminate, as in the halting program.This is actually the reason why I believe in Free Will.
Determinism is provably impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930096</id>
	<title>Yawn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is like the Drake equation. More boring bullshit from theorists that has nothing to do with reality. Show me something in motion, show me a computer processing something, and then we'll talk. So you can describe the "algorithmic principle" of curiosity? So what? I could probably describe myself taking a shit and barfing at the same time algorithmically if I wanted. These people are so far up in their ivory tower they forget that at the end of the day you have to give instructions to a microprocessor. Stop wasting my time and Get Real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like the Drake equation .
More boring bullshit from theorists that has nothing to do with reality .
Show me something in motion , show me a computer processing something , and then we 'll talk .
So you can describe the " algorithmic principle " of curiosity ?
So what ?
I could probably describe myself taking a shit and barfing at the same time algorithmically if I wanted .
These people are so far up in their ivory tower they forget that at the end of the day you have to give instructions to a microprocessor .
Stop wasting my time and Get Real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like the Drake equation.
More boring bullshit from theorists that has nothing to do with reality.
Show me something in motion, show me a computer processing something, and then we'll talk.
So you can describe the "algorithmic principle" of curiosity?
So what?
I could probably describe myself taking a shit and barfing at the same time algorithmically if I wanted.
These people are so far up in their ivory tower they forget that at the end of the day you have to give instructions to a microprocessor.
Stop wasting my time and Get Real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931840</id>
	<title>Non-determinism.</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1264684920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Bell's theorem shows us that the Universe cannot be both local and deterministic.  That being the case, he's on pretty shaky ground proposing in-principle deterministic computability, although he is not the first to do this.  I like Penrose' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness, not because there's any evidence for it (there isn't much "evidence" for Consciousness at all, apart from your first person experience of it), but because to me it's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers' zombies.  I like to think I'm mostly the former.<blockquote><div><p>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Bell 's theorem shows us that the Universe can not be both local and deterministic .
That being the case , he 's on pretty shaky ground proposing in-principle deterministic computability , although he is not the first to do this .
I like Penrose ' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness , not because there 's any evidence for it ( there is n't much " evidence " for Consciousness at all , apart from your first person experience of it ) , but because to me it 's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers ' zombies .
I like to think I 'm mostly the former.And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Bell's theorem shows us that the Universe cannot be both local and deterministic.
That being the case, he's on pretty shaky ground proposing in-principle deterministic computability, although he is not the first to do this.
I like Penrose' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness, not because there's any evidence for it (there isn't much "evidence" for Consciousness at all, apart from your first person experience of it), but because to me it's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers' zombies.
I like to think I'm mostly the former.And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</id>
	<title>Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264613040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.</p><p>You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.</p><p>So sure, I'll go with the theory that its possible, just not by any thing in our universe.</p><p>Likewise, nothing in our universe could leave it to perform the calculation elsewhere, as doing so links the two realities together, so you now need to simulate both.</p><p>Everything is interconnected and the very act of attempting to simulate the universe changes the simulation.  Every new version of the simulation would instantly require a new version to take into account the changes from the previous version.</p><p>The theory is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cute at best, but unworkable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so , you ca n't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.You 'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe , observable or otherwise.So sure , I 'll go with the theory that its possible , just not by any thing in our universe.Likewise , nothing in our universe could leave it to perform the calculation elsewhere , as doing so links the two realities together , so you now need to simulate both.Everything is interconnected and the very act of attempting to simulate the universe changes the simulation .
Every new version of the simulation would instantly require a new version to take into account the changes from the previous version.The theory is ... cute at best , but unworkable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.So sure, I'll go with the theory that its possible, just not by any thing in our universe.Likewise, nothing in our universe could leave it to perform the calculation elsewhere, as doing so links the two realities together, so you now need to simulate both.Everything is interconnected and the very act of attempting to simulate the universe changes the simulation.
Every new version of the simulation would instantly require a new version to take into account the changes from the previous version.The theory is ... cute at best, but unworkable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930178</id>
	<title>All well and good but what about a soul?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our greatest gift to god will be creating a mind that can believe in him.</p><p>Why is it that AI research is always mislead by it's name?  Namely they are<br>too focused on the intelligence aspect of a programmed mind that they<br>completely fail to recognize it's subjective emotions and motivation that they<br>should be focusing on.</p><p>What is a soul?  It's that part of a mind that is able to make a choice.  It's<br>the part of the mind that isn't logical.  It's the part of the mind that can<br>judge something as good and bad.  It's has beliefs.  It can be informed by<br>reasoning but it can still choose mysticism over reason.  It wants and it<br>can choose.  Behind every mind there is motivation.  Sure it's still a<br>program but it's the one that matters.</p><p>Just because you can give an ant mind super intelligence doesn't make it any<br>less of an ant.  It understands more but it is still an ant and wants what<br>ants want. The reverse of this is a complex soul that can't make sense<br>of the world around him; we tend to call this autism.  Maybe the former is<br>autism as well.</p><p>Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that they<br>can actually drive a sane person to insanity.  Therefore we should also be<br>able to drive an artificial mind to insanity.</p><p>It is not enough to recognize beauty; you have to feel it, you have know and<br>believe that it is good and right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our greatest gift to god will be creating a mind that can believe in him.Why is it that AI research is always mislead by it 's name ?
Namely they aretoo focused on the intelligence aspect of a programmed mind that theycompletely fail to recognize it 's subjective emotions and motivation that theyshould be focusing on.What is a soul ?
It 's that part of a mind that is able to make a choice .
It'sthe part of the mind that is n't logical .
It 's the part of the mind that canjudge something as good and bad .
It 's has beliefs .
It can be informed byreasoning but it can still choose mysticism over reason .
It wants and itcan choose .
Behind every mind there is motivation .
Sure it 's still aprogram but it 's the one that matters.Just because you can give an ant mind super intelligence does n't make it anyless of an ant .
It understands more but it is still an ant and wants whatants want .
The reverse of this is a complex soul that ca n't make senseof the world around him ; we tend to call this autism .
Maybe the former isautism as well.Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that theycan actually drive a sane person to insanity .
Therefore we should also beable to drive an artificial mind to insanity.It is not enough to recognize beauty ; you have to feel it , you have know andbelieve that it is good and right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our greatest gift to god will be creating a mind that can believe in him.Why is it that AI research is always mislead by it's name?
Namely they aretoo focused on the intelligence aspect of a programmed mind that theycompletely fail to recognize it's subjective emotions and motivation that theyshould be focusing on.What is a soul?
It's that part of a mind that is able to make a choice.
It'sthe part of the mind that isn't logical.
It's the part of the mind that canjudge something as good and bad.
It's has beliefs.
It can be informed byreasoning but it can still choose mysticism over reason.
It wants and itcan choose.
Behind every mind there is motivation.
Sure it's still aprogram but it's the one that matters.Just because you can give an ant mind super intelligence doesn't make it anyless of an ant.
It understands more but it is still an ant and wants whatants want.
The reverse of this is a complex soul that can't make senseof the world around him; we tend to call this autism.
Maybe the former isautism as well.Most people should be able to agree that psychologists know enough that theycan actually drive a sane person to insanity.
Therefore we should also beable to drive an artificial mind to insanity.It is not enough to recognize beauty; you have to feel it, you have know andbelieve that it is good and right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931654</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the infinite loop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the infinite loop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the infinite loop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931408</id>
	<title>If a self-aware AI thought hard enough</title>
	<author>pinkushun</author>
	<datestamp>1264678440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising...'</p></div><p>... and that curiosity overlapped, like so many ill and broken human brains, into the realm of murder... Skynet!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random , non-arbitrary , regular data that is novel and surprising...'... and that curiosity overlapped , like so many ill and broken human brains , into the realm of murder... Skynet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising...'... and that curiosity overlapped, like so many ill and broken human brains, into the realm of murder... Skynet!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931098</id>
	<title>What comes next?</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1264674720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe next they should study how to program bi-curiosity. God knows most software is pretty gay these days, and I'd like to know why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe next they should study how to program bi-curiosity .
God knows most software is pretty gay these days , and I 'd like to know why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe next they should study how to program bi-curiosity.
God knows most software is pretty gay these days, and I'd like to know why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30942524</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Mike Blakemore</author>
	<datestamp>1264677900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The computer itself is the simulation and so there is no need for an additional 'outside our universe' computer, but rather a platform of rules for the computer to operate. Also, keep in mind that a computer doesn't need hardware, just 1's and 0's.<br> <br>

The human mind cannot comprehend infinite time or space and so we should inherently know that much of the reason and functionality of our existence is incomprehensible and even unfathomable to our small human minds.<br> <br>

Everyone should read <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=pfy92VeKP88C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=god's+debris&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kOJDf\_jqD-&amp;sig=-Kc-n3i4vUDWLOPgXCANYAcRGaY&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=iQhiS8nNPIbANejzocEP&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=6&amp;ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">God's Debris by Scott Adams</a> [google.com].<br> <br>

I've studied AI stuff for a few years now and my view on reality is constantly evolving the more I learn... <br> <br>

I am under the impression that everything in our existence, broken down to its simplest form, is nothing but a series of facts (observed or otherwise unknown to us) in specific patterns. These patterns of facts, glued together to form data trees, comprise all of reality.<br> <br>

Its like all of matter is one giant glob of putty, constantly churning, forming new random facts and data patterns. Much like how matter is neither destroyed or created; it is recycled. <br> <br>

Reminds me of a <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527441.500-horizontal-and-vertical-the-evolution-of-evolution.html?page=2" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">recent article</a> [newscientist.com] about Horizontal Gene Transfer. <br> <br>

We are all just subsystems of a bigger dataset and there is no real individualism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The computer itself is the simulation and so there is no need for an additional 'outside our universe ' computer , but rather a platform of rules for the computer to operate .
Also , keep in mind that a computer does n't need hardware , just 1 's and 0 's .
The human mind can not comprehend infinite time or space and so we should inherently know that much of the reason and functionality of our existence is incomprehensible and even unfathomable to our small human minds .
Everyone should read God 's Debris by Scott Adams [ google.com ] .
I 've studied AI stuff for a few years now and my view on reality is constantly evolving the more I learn.. . I am under the impression that everything in our existence , broken down to its simplest form , is nothing but a series of facts ( observed or otherwise unknown to us ) in specific patterns .
These patterns of facts , glued together to form data trees , comprise all of reality .
Its like all of matter is one giant glob of putty , constantly churning , forming new random facts and data patterns .
Much like how matter is neither destroyed or created ; it is recycled .
Reminds me of a recent article [ newscientist.com ] about Horizontal Gene Transfer .
We are all just subsystems of a bigger dataset and there is no real individualism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The computer itself is the simulation and so there is no need for an additional 'outside our universe' computer, but rather a platform of rules for the computer to operate.
Also, keep in mind that a computer doesn't need hardware, just 1's and 0's.
The human mind cannot comprehend infinite time or space and so we should inherently know that much of the reason and functionality of our existence is incomprehensible and even unfathomable to our small human minds.
Everyone should read God's Debris by Scott Adams [google.com].
I've studied AI stuff for a few years now and my view on reality is constantly evolving the more I learn...  

I am under the impression that everything in our existence, broken down to its simplest form, is nothing but a series of facts (observed or otherwise unknown to us) in specific patterns.
These patterns of facts, glued together to form data trees, comprise all of reality.
Its like all of matter is one giant glob of putty, constantly churning, forming new random facts and data patterns.
Much like how matter is neither destroyed or created; it is recycled.
Reminds me of a recent article [newscientist.com] about Horizontal Gene Transfer.
We are all just subsystems of a bigger dataset and there is no real individualism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932426</id>
	<title>Re:Non-determinism.</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1264689840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like Penrose' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness, not because there's any evidence for it (there isn't much "evidence" for Consciousness at all, apart from your first person experience of it), but because to me it's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers' zombies.  I like to think I'm mostly the former.</p></div><p>That's precisely what all you zombies (ie. everyone other than myself) are programmed to say. Although some of you do produce novel responses occasionally. The Penrose zombie presented his theory to the Karl Pribram zombie (my primary teaching machine) who asked "So what does this mean to psychology?" The Penrose zombie replied "How would I know? You're the psychologist." A strange thing to say because (a) the Penrose zombie didn't flinch from psychology in the 'zombies' issue (v 3 #1) of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and (2) the Pribram zombie was programmed as a neurologist, not a psychologist.</p><p>After receiving that JoCS issue I had my fill of speculative philosophy of science in place of real science and wrote to ask them where I might obtain samples of zombies suitable for laboratory testing. Since I, as the sole non-zombie, would know the correct answer to be 'everywhere; any of us', their programming correctly perceived my response as irony. Not having been programmed to respond to it (the zombie in TFA hadn't developed that idea yet), they didn't respond at all. As a result I canceled my subscription. They continued to produce that journal as if I were still taking it, again as a lack of complete programming.</p><p>The idea that complete computation can produce all the answers is not new. It is based on comprehensive algorithms rather than incomplete calculations resulting in "I don't know". It is because of this that such computations are called 'NP Complete'. It means that in order to complete the calculations, they have to be done as NP (Not Penrose).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Penrose ' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness , not because there 's any evidence for it ( there is n't much " evidence " for Consciousness at all , apart from your first person experience of it ) , but because to me it 's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers ' zombies .
I like to think I 'm mostly the former.That 's precisely what all you zombies ( ie .
everyone other than myself ) are programmed to say .
Although some of you do produce novel responses occasionally .
The Penrose zombie presented his theory to the Karl Pribram zombie ( my primary teaching machine ) who asked " So what does this mean to psychology ?
" The Penrose zombie replied " How would I know ?
You 're the psychologist .
" A strange thing to say because ( a ) the Penrose zombie did n't flinch from psychology in the 'zombies ' issue ( v 3 # 1 ) of the Journal of Consciousness Studies , and ( 2 ) the Pribram zombie was programmed as a neurologist , not a psychologist.After receiving that JoCS issue I had my fill of speculative philosophy of science in place of real science and wrote to ask them where I might obtain samples of zombies suitable for laboratory testing .
Since I , as the sole non-zombie , would know the correct answer to be 'everywhere ; any of us ' , their programming correctly perceived my response as irony .
Not having been programmed to respond to it ( the zombie in TFA had n't developed that idea yet ) , they did n't respond at all .
As a result I canceled my subscription .
They continued to produce that journal as if I were still taking it , again as a lack of complete programming.The idea that complete computation can produce all the answers is not new .
It is based on comprehensive algorithms rather than incomplete calculations resulting in " I do n't know " .
It is because of this that such computations are called 'NP Complete' .
It means that in order to complete the calculations , they have to be done as NP ( Not Penrose ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Penrose' ideas that there is an element of non-computability involved in Consciousness, not because there's any evidence for it (there isn't much "evidence" for Consciousness at all, apart from your first person experience of it), but because to me it's the difference between being Conscious and being one of David Chalmers' zombies.
I like to think I'm mostly the former.That's precisely what all you zombies (ie.
everyone other than myself) are programmed to say.
Although some of you do produce novel responses occasionally.
The Penrose zombie presented his theory to the Karl Pribram zombie (my primary teaching machine) who asked "So what does this mean to psychology?
" The Penrose zombie replied "How would I know?
You're the psychologist.
" A strange thing to say because (a) the Penrose zombie didn't flinch from psychology in the 'zombies' issue (v 3 #1) of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and (2) the Pribram zombie was programmed as a neurologist, not a psychologist.After receiving that JoCS issue I had my fill of speculative philosophy of science in place of real science and wrote to ask them where I might obtain samples of zombies suitable for laboratory testing.
Since I, as the sole non-zombie, would know the correct answer to be 'everywhere; any of us', their programming correctly perceived my response as irony.
Not having been programmed to respond to it (the zombie in TFA hadn't developed that idea yet), they didn't respond at all.
As a result I canceled my subscription.
They continued to produce that journal as if I were still taking it, again as a lack of complete programming.The idea that complete computation can produce all the answers is not new.
It is based on comprehensive algorithms rather than incomplete calculations resulting in "I don't know".
It is because of this that such computations are called 'NP Complete'.
It means that in order to complete the calculations, they have to be done as NP (Not Penrose).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930304</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264622160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Compression exists just for reasons like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compression exists just for reasons like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compression exists just for reasons like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929472</id>
	<title>skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuff said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30943910</id>
	<title>He's gonna build the Infinite Perspective Vortex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or at least the computer that could build it.</p><p>Can't believe I'm the first to say that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or at least the computer that could build it.Ca n't believe I 'm the first to say that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or at least the computer that could build it.Can't believe I'm the first to say that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933004</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If/when a true AI exists, it will need some randomization to make it curious</i></p><p>It's going to need more than randomness to be sentient. I wrote a program back in 1983 that was designed to be a smart-assed Turing test machine, and it usually passed, giving smart-assed answers in context. It relied on a controlled randomness. It was a total failure, though, because the purpose in writing it was to demonstrate that intelligence, like everything else, is easily faked. Trouble was, people who played with the program believed it was actually thinking, which was its failure.</p><p>The first one was written for a 16k Timex-Sinclair computer. With today's monster computers you an fake anything, very easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If/when a true AI exists , it will need some randomization to make it curiousIt 's going to need more than randomness to be sentient .
I wrote a program back in 1983 that was designed to be a smart-assed Turing test machine , and it usually passed , giving smart-assed answers in context .
It relied on a controlled randomness .
It was a total failure , though , because the purpose in writing it was to demonstrate that intelligence , like everything else , is easily faked .
Trouble was , people who played with the program believed it was actually thinking , which was its failure.The first one was written for a 16k Timex-Sinclair computer .
With today 's monster computers you an fake anything , very easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If/when a true AI exists, it will need some randomization to make it curiousIt's going to need more than randomness to be sentient.
I wrote a program back in 1983 that was designed to be a smart-assed Turing test machine, and it usually passed, giving smart-assed answers in context.
It relied on a controlled randomness.
It was a total failure, though, because the purpose in writing it was to demonstrate that intelligence, like everything else, is easily faked.
Trouble was, people who played with the program believed it was actually thinking, which was its failure.The first one was written for a 16k Timex-Sinclair computer.
With today's monster computers you an fake anything, very easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931502</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1264679520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that this could be covered by the fact that senses are imperfect. A lot of intelligence is about making sensible decisions and conclusions based on incomplete and unreliable data, but just because something is the most rational action to take doesn't mean it will necessarily be correct. Making incorrect decisions and conclusions will lead to dead ends (hopefully<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;), but the things discovered on the way could lead to entirely novel discoveries. As a down-to-Earth example, imagine you need to complete a report for work but could do with some more details from a colleague who isn't picking up the phone. You're out at a work party and think you may have spotted them from behind, but can't be sure. The rational thing to do is to approach the person and see if it's them, since you stand to gain if it is them and have nothing to lose if it's not. You tap this person on the shoulder, they turn around and it's not them, but your apology turns into a conversation, you get to know each other and a few years later you're married. It's a contrived example I know, but here the imperfection of our sight (we couldn't know the person's face when they were facing away) plus a rational action based upon it ends up being incorrect, but opens up a completely new series of events which we wouldn't have guessed possible based on our ("A to B to C") reason behind taking the decision to approach.</p><p>From a more academic perspective, there are many failed Physics theories which have nevertheless created strong branches of Mathematics, some of which have even proved useful in different areas of Physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that this could be covered by the fact that senses are imperfect .
A lot of intelligence is about making sensible decisions and conclusions based on incomplete and unreliable data , but just because something is the most rational action to take does n't mean it will necessarily be correct .
Making incorrect decisions and conclusions will lead to dead ends ( hopefully ; ) , but the things discovered on the way could lead to entirely novel discoveries .
As a down-to-Earth example , imagine you need to complete a report for work but could do with some more details from a colleague who is n't picking up the phone .
You 're out at a work party and think you may have spotted them from behind , but ca n't be sure .
The rational thing to do is to approach the person and see if it 's them , since you stand to gain if it is them and have nothing to lose if it 's not .
You tap this person on the shoulder , they turn around and it 's not them , but your apology turns into a conversation , you get to know each other and a few years later you 're married .
It 's a contrived example I know , but here the imperfection of our sight ( we could n't know the person 's face when they were facing away ) plus a rational action based upon it ends up being incorrect , but opens up a completely new series of events which we would n't have guessed possible based on our ( " A to B to C " ) reason behind taking the decision to approach.From a more academic perspective , there are many failed Physics theories which have nevertheless created strong branches of Mathematics , some of which have even proved useful in different areas of Physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that this could be covered by the fact that senses are imperfect.
A lot of intelligence is about making sensible decisions and conclusions based on incomplete and unreliable data, but just because something is the most rational action to take doesn't mean it will necessarily be correct.
Making incorrect decisions and conclusions will lead to dead ends (hopefully ;), but the things discovered on the way could lead to entirely novel discoveries.
As a down-to-Earth example, imagine you need to complete a report for work but could do with some more details from a colleague who isn't picking up the phone.
You're out at a work party and think you may have spotted them from behind, but can't be sure.
The rational thing to do is to approach the person and see if it's them, since you stand to gain if it is them and have nothing to lose if it's not.
You tap this person on the shoulder, they turn around and it's not them, but your apology turns into a conversation, you get to know each other and a few years later you're married.
It's a contrived example I know, but here the imperfection of our sight (we couldn't know the person's face when they were facing away) plus a rational action based upon it ends up being incorrect, but opens up a completely new series of events which we wouldn't have guessed possible based on our ("A to B to C") reason behind taking the decision to approach.From a more academic perspective, there are many failed Physics theories which have nevertheless created strong branches of Mathematics, some of which have even proved useful in different areas of Physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929852</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264616160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own. Why make such an assumption?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because thats they way science works.  Its based on observations.</p><p>Of course, your imagination is part of the universe and may just be better connected to whatever may be outside our universe than I am, so you could of course be entirely correct.</p><p>But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if we don't go based on observations then its not science, its more like fantasy or religion, take your pick.</p><p>The final part of it is simple, the universe doesn't round, the pattern only reaches 1 because you introduce error intentionally to make things easier on yourself (or your calculations).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own .
Why make such an assumption ? Because thats they way science works .
Its based on observations.Of course , your imagination is part of the universe and may just be better connected to whatever may be outside our universe than I am , so you could of course be entirely correct.But ... if we do n't go based on observations then its not science , its more like fantasy or religion , take your pick.The final part of it is simple , the universe does n't round , the pattern only reaches 1 because you introduce error intentionally to make things easier on yourself ( or your calculations ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that you are assuming that this outside universe obeys some basic laws of our own.
Why make such an assumption?Because thats they way science works.
Its based on observations.Of course, your imagination is part of the universe and may just be better connected to whatever may be outside our universe than I am, so you could of course be entirely correct.But ... if we don't go based on observations then its not science, its more like fantasy or religion, take your pick.The final part of it is simple, the universe doesn't round, the pattern only reaches 1 because you introduce error intentionally to make things easier on yourself (or your calculations).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30938126</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1264708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why not the GPLv3 ?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Licensing under GPLv3 is left as an exercise for any developer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not the GPLv3 ?
Licensing under GPLv3 is left as an exercise for any developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not the GPLv3 ?
Licensing under GPLv3 is left as an exercise for any developer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931852</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this stuff is so obvious that it doesn't even bear repeating.  No-one is saying that you can build a machine to simulate this universe inside this universe - that's obviously impossible by a simple data storage argument based on the pigeonhole principle.</p><p>The theory that the universe *could* be simulated *in principle* by this method is another question entirely; a philosophical question.</p><p>All he's saying is that, actually, the universe could be deterministic via hidden variables.  Which has been obvious all along, apart from the few years when people believed it had been debunked.</p><p>The stuff about simulation is intended to illustrate his point.  It isn't the point itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this stuff is so obvious that it does n't even bear repeating .
No-one is saying that you can build a machine to simulate this universe inside this universe - that 's obviously impossible by a simple data storage argument based on the pigeonhole principle.The theory that the universe * could * be simulated * in principle * by this method is another question entirely ; a philosophical question.All he 's saying is that , actually , the universe could be deterministic via hidden variables .
Which has been obvious all along , apart from the few years when people believed it had been debunked.The stuff about simulation is intended to illustrate his point .
It is n't the point itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this stuff is so obvious that it doesn't even bear repeating.
No-one is saying that you can build a machine to simulate this universe inside this universe - that's obviously impossible by a simple data storage argument based on the pigeonhole principle.The theory that the universe *could* be simulated *in principle* by this method is another question entirely; a philosophical question.All he's saying is that, actually, the universe could be deterministic via hidden variables.
Which has been obvious all along, apart from the few years when people believed it had been debunked.The stuff about simulation is intended to illustrate his point.
It isn't the point itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929542</id>
	<title>There.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1264612920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>001 Gather data<br>
002 Hypothesise<br>
003 Go To 1</htmltext>
<tokenext>001 Gather data 002 Hypothesise 003 Go To 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>001 Gather data
002 Hypothesise
003 Go To 1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929556</id>
	<title>Output=42</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1264613100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow it always comes down to being 42.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow it always comes down to being 42 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow it always comes down to being 42.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934210</id>
	<title>What is curiosity</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1264697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe its not that mystical or complex.

Its a simple desire to find out more about a phenomenon that has already influenced us.
We already had some inputs in our brain about it, but we don't fully understand it.

Its just the desire to rationalize, to "complete the circle". Its a very basic mind process.

It can be simulated extremely easy in my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe its not that mystical or complex .
Its a simple desire to find out more about a phenomenon that has already influenced us .
We already had some inputs in our brain about it , but we do n't fully understand it .
Its just the desire to rationalize , to " complete the circle " .
Its a very basic mind process .
It can be simulated extremely easy in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe its not that mystical or complex.
Its a simple desire to find out more about a phenomenon that has already influenced us.
We already had some inputs in our brain about it, but we don't fully understand it.
Its just the desire to rationalize, to "complete the circle".
Its a very basic mind process.
It can be simulated extremely easy in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929972</id>
	<title>Twilight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article reminds me of the short story <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight\_(short\_story)" title="wikipedia.org">Twilight</a> [wikipedia.org] by John W. Campbell. I read it when I was a kid and it left a lasting impression that, should humans lose their curiosity, the striving for knowledge might yet continue.<p>And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article reminds me of the short story Twilight [ wikipedia.org ] by John W. Campbell. I read it when I was a kid and it left a lasting impression that , should humans lose their curiosity , the striving for knowledge might yet continue.And then when I read about the current state of the education system , I get just a bit worried.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article reminds me of the short story Twilight [wikipedia.org] by John W. Campbell. I read it when I was a kid and it left a lasting impression that, should humans lose their curiosity, the striving for knowledge might yet continue.And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932112</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1264687680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oblig XKCD:</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/505/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/505/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>Incidentally, it's my favorite xkcd strip</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig XKCD : http : //xkcd.com/505/ [ xkcd.com ] Incidentally , it 's my favorite xkcd strip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig XKCD:http://xkcd.com/505/ [xkcd.com]Incidentally, it's my favorite xkcd strip</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930082</id>
	<title>pseudo-code</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10: CALL Monolith<br>20: PRAISE Monolith<br>30: GOTO 50<br>40: Understand Monolith<br>50: Satiated = CALL Curiosity<br>60: IF Satiated &gt; Infinity GOTO 40<br>70: ELSE GOTO 50</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 : CALL Monolith20 : PRAISE Monolith30 : GOTO 5040 : Understand Monolith50 : Satiated = CALL Curiosity60 : IF Satiated &gt; Infinity GOTO 4070 : ELSE GOTO 50</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10: CALL Monolith20: PRAISE Monolith30: GOTO 5040: Understand Monolith50: Satiated = CALL Curiosity60: IF Satiated &gt; Infinity GOTO 4070: ELSE GOTO 50</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932546</id>
	<title>random snippet</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1264690440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if ( object.stateIsPredictable() )<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; then ( object.process();)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; else ( cout  "Interesting!" )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if ( object.stateIsPredictable ( ) )         then ( object.process ( ) ; )         else ( cout " Interesting !
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if ( object.stateIsPredictable() )
        then ( object.process();)
        else ( cout  "Interesting!
" )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929668</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264614180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be programming all of this tomorrow... on my new iPad</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be programming all of this tomorrow... on my new iPad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be programming all of this tomorrow... on my new iPad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930644</id>
	<title>Doobie</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1264669320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program."</p></div><p>After which he took another long drag on his joint and said, "It's like our whole universe is inside a single election in a larger universe, you dig? Hey, pass those corn chips over, dude! Now where was I? What? Ah, never mind. Put on Conan. It's his last show."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe , including everyone in it , is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program .
" After which he took another long drag on his joint and said , " It 's like our whole universe is inside a single election in a larger universe , you dig ?
Hey , pass those corn chips over , dude !
Now where was I ?
What ? Ah , never mind .
Put on Conan .
It 's his last show .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.
"After which he took another long drag on his joint and said, "It's like our whole universe is inside a single election in a larger universe, you dig?
Hey, pass those corn chips over, dude!
Now where was I?
What? Ah, never mind.
Put on Conan.
It's his last show.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932374</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>3D-nut</author>
	<datestamp>1264689540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't Feynman prove that no deterministic machine can simulate nonlocality?  I read or heard this somewhere, and now I can't find the proof on the web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Feynman prove that no deterministic machine can simulate nonlocality ?
I read or heard this somewhere , and now I ca n't find the proof on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Feynman prove that no deterministic machine can simulate nonlocality?
I read or heard this somewhere, and now I can't find the proof on the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934304</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264698060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...</i></p><p>Relax, the education system was as screwed up when I went to school in the '60s as it was when my kids went to school in the '90s. It hasn't gotten any better, but it hasn't gotten worse, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then when I read about the current state of the education system , I get just a bit worried...Relax , the education system was as screwed up when I went to school in the '60s as it was when my kids went to school in the '90s .
It has n't gotten any better , but it has n't gotten worse , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...Relax, the education system was as screwed up when I went to school in the '60s as it was when my kids went to school in the '90s.
It hasn't gotten any better, but it hasn't gotten worse, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933722</id>
	<title>duality</title>
	<author>eexaa</author>
	<datestamp>1264696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If computer perceives things as "exciting" and is curious about them, it will necessarily perceive other things that are "boring" and will have no interest in them, probably refusing to do them as non-necessary, and generally moaning.</p><p>Also, guess what category is "running your Windows".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If computer perceives things as " exciting " and is curious about them , it will necessarily perceive other things that are " boring " and will have no interest in them , probably refusing to do them as non-necessary , and generally moaning.Also , guess what category is " running your Windows " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If computer perceives things as "exciting" and is curious about them, it will necessarily perceive other things that are "boring" and will have no interest in them, probably refusing to do them as non-necessary, and generally moaning.Also, guess what category is "running your Windows".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931604</id>
	<title>How curiosity works:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264681020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once extensively thought about that subject. The point of curiosity. How it works.</p><p>We humans have an internal model of reality. In fact it&rsquo;s the only reality that we have. Since we can&rsquo;t prove the existence of anything outside our minds.<br>This model is a set of associations. Which, just as the universe, are defined in a relative way.<br>This means, that we can&rsquo;t handle anything that is not related to something else in some way. Even if it&rsquo;s just a basic feeling.</p><p>But since we start out with nothing, and must be able to handle things, to survive, we have a built-in trigger. Whenever we find something that we can&rsquo;t handle, we start trying to fit it into our model. Therefore we play with it, directed to whatever tiny feeling seems remind us of something. If there is none, there also is no real method in our playing. Just like with games. (Which are in fact training for such situations.)</p><p>We then either find a way that it fits... or we start to ignore it, as if it would not exist. Because else, our mind &mdash; unable to handle reality anymore &mdash; would completely break down. (Which never happens, because there is always schizophrenia &mdash; living in a imaginary world &mdash; as a last resort to protect you.)</p><p>I think if we implement it this way, it&rsquo;s actually not that hard to simulate curiosity.<br>Create a mind that stores things in associations, and has a inner model, that it uses to do normal things a life form would do (collect and transform resources, grow/expand and reproduce, etc).<br>And then just build routine that tries to uphold a reality where everything fits and makes sense.<br>Meaning that things that can&rsquo;t be associated, will be manipulated, until they are, or until a &ldquo;I give up&rdquo; neuron gets past its firing point (where that thing would be ignored).<br>Of course it&rsquo;s easier when the mind has the ability to internally simulate never seen combinations of things, based on the known associations. (Imagination.) Because then that mind could make up fantasy worlds (that make sense in the inner model) about those things (= religion), and handle them anyway. (Or become schizophrenic. ^^)</p><p>And there you&rsquo;d have it: Curiosity. (Which could even kill the simulated cat.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once extensively thought about that subject .
The point of curiosity .
How it works.We humans have an internal model of reality .
In fact it    s the only reality that we have .
Since we can    t prove the existence of anything outside our minds.This model is a set of associations .
Which , just as the universe , are defined in a relative way.This means , that we can    t handle anything that is not related to something else in some way .
Even if it    s just a basic feeling.But since we start out with nothing , and must be able to handle things , to survive , we have a built-in trigger .
Whenever we find something that we can    t handle , we start trying to fit it into our model .
Therefore we play with it , directed to whatever tiny feeling seems remind us of something .
If there is none , there also is no real method in our playing .
Just like with games .
( Which are in fact training for such situations .
) We then either find a way that it fits... or we start to ignore it , as if it would not exist .
Because else , our mind    unable to handle reality anymore    would completely break down .
( Which never happens , because there is always schizophrenia    living in a imaginary world    as a last resort to protect you .
) I think if we implement it this way , it    s actually not that hard to simulate curiosity.Create a mind that stores things in associations , and has a inner model , that it uses to do normal things a life form would do ( collect and transform resources , grow/expand and reproduce , etc ) .And then just build routine that tries to uphold a reality where everything fits and makes sense.Meaning that things that can    t be associated , will be manipulated , until they are , or until a    I give up    neuron gets past its firing point ( where that thing would be ignored ) .Of course it    s easier when the mind has the ability to internally simulate never seen combinations of things , based on the known associations .
( Imagination. ) Because then that mind could make up fantasy worlds ( that make sense in the inner model ) about those things ( = religion ) , and handle them anyway .
( Or become schizophrenic .
^ ^ ) And there you    d have it : Curiosity .
( Which could even kill the simulated cat .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once extensively thought about that subject.
The point of curiosity.
How it works.We humans have an internal model of reality.
In fact it’s the only reality that we have.
Since we can’t prove the existence of anything outside our minds.This model is a set of associations.
Which, just as the universe, are defined in a relative way.This means, that we can’t handle anything that is not related to something else in some way.
Even if it’s just a basic feeling.But since we start out with nothing, and must be able to handle things, to survive, we have a built-in trigger.
Whenever we find something that we can’t handle, we start trying to fit it into our model.
Therefore we play with it, directed to whatever tiny feeling seems remind us of something.
If there is none, there also is no real method in our playing.
Just like with games.
(Which are in fact training for such situations.
)We then either find a way that it fits... or we start to ignore it, as if it would not exist.
Because else, our mind — unable to handle reality anymore — would completely break down.
(Which never happens, because there is always schizophrenia — living in a imaginary world — as a last resort to protect you.
)I think if we implement it this way, it’s actually not that hard to simulate curiosity.Create a mind that stores things in associations, and has a inner model, that it uses to do normal things a life form would do (collect and transform resources, grow/expand and reproduce, etc).And then just build routine that tries to uphold a reality where everything fits and makes sense.Meaning that things that can’t be associated, will be manipulated, until they are, or until a “I give up” neuron gets past its firing point (where that thing would be ignored).Of course it’s easier when the mind has the ability to internally simulate never seen combinations of things, based on the known associations.
(Imagination.) Because then that mind could make up fantasy worlds (that make sense in the inner model) about those things (= religion), and handle them anyway.
(Or become schizophrenic.
^^)And there you’d have it: Curiosity.
(Which could even kill the simulated cat.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931850</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>for i in Someone Something Wherever Eventually Because Somehow; do<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; echo "$i"<br>done</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>for i in Someone Something Wherever Eventually Because Somehow ; do     echo " $ i " done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for i in Someone Something Wherever Eventually Because Somehow; do    echo "$i"done</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264613700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; If/when a true AI exists, it will need some randomization to make it curious.  Sure, you can chart point A to B to C, but what if randomly it skews off to somewhere just west of point Z enroute, and observes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; That doesn't have to be a physical route.  It could be as simple as taking a random word from a dictionary, searching that on your favorite search engine, taking a random result from there, and then following the result from another random word.  An unpredictable path, but that's what brings any of us to enlightenment.  If you just went from home to work and back every day, and never turned down the wrong road, just to see where it goes, you'll never discover what is really out there.  What is your universe?  I've known so many people who only know points A and B, and never even considered point C, much less all the wonderful things to experience in between or beyond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    If/when a true AI exists , it will need some randomization to make it curious .
Sure , you can chart point A to B to C , but what if randomly it skews off to somewhere just west of point Z enroute , and observes .
    That does n't have to be a physical route .
It could be as simple as taking a random word from a dictionary , searching that on your favorite search engine , taking a random result from there , and then following the result from another random word .
An unpredictable path , but that 's what brings any of us to enlightenment .
If you just went from home to work and back every day , and never turned down the wrong road , just to see where it goes , you 'll never discover what is really out there .
What is your universe ?
I 've known so many people who only know points A and B , and never even considered point C , much less all the wonderful things to experience in between or beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    If/when a true AI exists, it will need some randomization to make it curious.
Sure, you can chart point A to B to C, but what if randomly it skews off to somewhere just west of point Z enroute, and observes.
    That doesn't have to be a physical route.
It could be as simple as taking a random word from a dictionary, searching that on your favorite search engine, taking a random result from there, and then following the result from another random word.
An unpredictable path, but that's what brings any of us to enlightenment.
If you just went from home to work and back every day, and never turned down the wrong road, just to see where it goes, you'll never discover what is really out there.
What is your universe?
I've known so many people who only know points A and B, and never even considered point C, much less all the wonderful things to experience in between or beyond.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930962</id>
	<title>Is a question mark curious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sticking a picture of a smile on a piece of paper does not mean that the piece of paper is happy.</p><p>Curiosity is a feeling. Programming a computer to work in some particular way does not mean that the computer is curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sticking a picture of a smile on a piece of paper does not mean that the piece of paper is happy.Curiosity is a feeling .
Programming a computer to work in some particular way does not mean that the computer is curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sticking a picture of a smile on a piece of paper does not mean that the piece of paper is happy.Curiosity is a feeling.
Programming a computer to work in some particular way does not mean that the computer is curious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929608</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1264613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.</p><p>You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.</p></div><p>I can't believe this for some reason.  If it is my own ignorance... would someone elaborate? Why is a device's computing/processing power only able to simulate the particles it is made out of?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so , you ca n't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.You 'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe , observable or otherwise.I ca n't believe this for some reason .
If it is my own ignorance... would someone elaborate ?
Why is a device 's computing/processing power only able to simulate the particles it is made out of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.I can't believe this for some reason.
If it is my own ignorance... would someone elaborate?
Why is a device's computing/processing power only able to simulate the particles it is made out of?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932446</id>
	<title>This goes to show</title>
	<author>maroberts</author>
	<datestamp>1264689900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any problem is solvable given an infinite number of (live) cats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any problem is solvable given an infinite number of ( live ) cats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any problem is solvable given an infinite number of (live) cats</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932382</id>
	<title>Re:Twilight</title>
	<author>skyride</author>
	<datestamp>1264689540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Speaking as a student here in the UK where the "education" system is almost as bad, all I can say is don't worry. The truly smart, get smart and jump ship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then when I read about the current state of the education system , I get just a bit worried.. . Speaking as a student here in the UK where the " education " system is almost as bad , all I can say is do n't worry .
The truly smart , get smart and jump ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then when I read about the current state of the education system, I get just a bit worried...

Speaking as a student here in the UK where the "education" system is almost as bad, all I can say is don't worry.
The truly smart, get smart and jump ship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934660</id>
	<title>Short version of his talk, 10 minutes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a short version of his incredible talk, only 10 minutes:<br>youtube.com/watch?v=Ipomu0MLFaI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a short version of his incredible talk , only 10 minutes : youtube.com/watch ? v = Ipomu0MLFaI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a short version of his incredible talk, only 10 minutes:youtube.com/watch?v=Ipomu0MLFaI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30935214</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>ikarigullwing</author>
	<datestamp>1264700520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
*ovation, ovation*</htmltext>
<tokenext>* ovation , ovation *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
*ovation, ovation*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931918</id>
	<title>skynet curious?</title>
	<author>Caue</author>
	<datestamp>1264685880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>skynet: would humans would survive a nuclear winter? let's find out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>skynet : would humans would survive a nuclear winter ?
let 's find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>skynet: would humans would survive a nuclear winter?
let's find out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930048</id>
	<title>Hubris</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1264618440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.'</i></p><p>
&nbsp; Build a what?</p><p>
&nbsp; I suspect it's already retirement time. No offense.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'is to build an optimal scientist , then retire .
'   Build a what ?
  I suspect it 's already retirement time .
No offense.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'is to build an optimal scientist, then retire.
'
  Build a what?
  I suspect it's already retirement time.
No offense.SB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930010</id>
	<title>Self referential</title>
	<author>Max Littlemore</author>
	<datestamp>1264618020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it isn't funny.</p><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>How does the compression progress drive explain humor? Some subjective observers who read a given joke for the first time may think it is funny. Why? As the eyes are sequentially scanning the text the brain receives a complex visual input stream. The latter is subjectively partially compressible as it relates to the observer's previous knowledge about letters and words. That is, given the reader's current knowledge and current compressor, the raw data can be encoded by fewer bits than required to store random data of the same size. The punch line at the end, however, is unexpected. Initially this failed expectation results in sub-optimal data compression -- storage of expected events does not cost anything, but deviations from predictions require extra bits to encode them. The compressor, however, does not stay the same forever. Within a short time interval, its learning algorithm improves its performance on the data seen so far, by discovering the non-random, non-arbitrary and therefore compressible pattern relating the punch line to previous text and previous knowledge of the reader. This saves a few bits of storage. The number of saved bits (or a similar measure of learning progress) becomes the observer's intrinsic reward, possibly strong enough to motivate him to read on in search for more reward through additional yet unknown patterns. The recent joke, however, will never be novel or funny again.</p></div></blockquote><p>I fear that no joke will ever be novel or funny again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to explain why a joke is funny , it is n't funny.From TFA : How does the compression progress drive explain humor ?
Some subjective observers who read a given joke for the first time may think it is funny .
Why ? As the eyes are sequentially scanning the text the brain receives a complex visual input stream .
The latter is subjectively partially compressible as it relates to the observer 's previous knowledge about letters and words .
That is , given the reader 's current knowledge and current compressor , the raw data can be encoded by fewer bits than required to store random data of the same size .
The punch line at the end , however , is unexpected .
Initially this failed expectation results in sub-optimal data compression -- storage of expected events does not cost anything , but deviations from predictions require extra bits to encode them .
The compressor , however , does not stay the same forever .
Within a short time interval , its learning algorithm improves its performance on the data seen so far , by discovering the non-random , non-arbitrary and therefore compressible pattern relating the punch line to previous text and previous knowledge of the reader .
This saves a few bits of storage .
The number of saved bits ( or a similar measure of learning progress ) becomes the observer 's intrinsic reward , possibly strong enough to motivate him to read on in search for more reward through additional yet unknown patterns .
The recent joke , however , will never be novel or funny again.I fear that no joke will ever be novel or funny again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to explain why a joke is funny, it isn't funny.From TFA:How does the compression progress drive explain humor?
Some subjective observers who read a given joke for the first time may think it is funny.
Why? As the eyes are sequentially scanning the text the brain receives a complex visual input stream.
The latter is subjectively partially compressible as it relates to the observer's previous knowledge about letters and words.
That is, given the reader's current knowledge and current compressor, the raw data can be encoded by fewer bits than required to store random data of the same size.
The punch line at the end, however, is unexpected.
Initially this failed expectation results in sub-optimal data compression -- storage of expected events does not cost anything, but deviations from predictions require extra bits to encode them.
The compressor, however, does not stay the same forever.
Within a short time interval, its learning algorithm improves its performance on the data seen so far, by discovering the non-random, non-arbitrary and therefore compressible pattern relating the punch line to previous text and previous knowledge of the reader.
This saves a few bits of storage.
The number of saved bits (or a similar measure of learning progress) becomes the observer's intrinsic reward, possibly strong enough to motivate him to read on in search for more reward through additional yet unknown patterns.
The recent joke, however, will never be novel or funny again.I fear that no joke will ever be novel or funny again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933392</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Powys</author>
	<datestamp>1264695000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so</p></div><p>How about recursion?  An atom is kind of like a solar system, a solar system is kind of like a galaxy, and a galaxy is kind of like the universe. (And perhaps the universe is kind of like the multiverse?)
<br> <br>
I kind of jest, but not necessarily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do soHow about recursion ?
An atom is kind of like a solar system , a solar system is kind of like a galaxy , and a galaxy is kind of like the universe .
( And perhaps the universe is kind of like the multiverse ?
) I kind of jest , but not necessarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do soHow about recursion?
An atom is kind of like a solar system, a solar system is kind of like a galaxy, and a galaxy is kind of like the universe.
(And perhaps the universe is kind of like the multiverse?
)
 
I kind of jest, but not necessarily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30941388</id>
	<title>Re:curiosity 0.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264673880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>#!/bin/sh<br>for i in who what where when why how; do<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; echo "But $i, dad?"<br>done</p></div><p>instead of grounding your kids, you can threaten to replace them with small shell scripts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># ! /bin/shfor i in who what where when why how ; do         echo " But $ i , dad ?
" doneinstead of grounding your kids , you can threaten to replace them with small shell scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#!/bin/shfor i in who what where when why how; do
        echo "But $i, dad?
"doneinstead of grounding your kids, you can threaten to replace them with small shell scripts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930508</id>
	<title>Re:Physics of computing the universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you sleep under a rock for the last 80 years? Two words: Quantum theory. Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you sleep under a rock for the last 80 years ?
Two words : Quantum theory .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you sleep under a rock for the last 80 years?
Two words: Quantum theory.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30938646</id>
	<title>Dream on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume the ambition here is to duplicate the curiosity of the best of humans on machines.</p><p>If such algorithm can be done, it must be self-sustaining, an infinite loop, but non-repetitive, with a self-determining ability to recognize and incorporate ever newer variables, and as complexity increases, the consciousness to generate its own algorithms for better organization of its growing self. Create another thinking head, in short. That's one hurdle.</p><p>Multiply that by the number of heads in the world to account for variation or selectivity in curiosity, due to external factors beyond individual self-government. Task, create the web of humanity. That's another hurdle.</p><p>But perhaps the hardest - for the grand algorithm that answers to the above, what energy source is there to sustain open-ended growth? And say this sci-fi becomes reality, what is the advantage we have against the Frankenstein? It will not want to DIE easily. No life does.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume the ambition here is to duplicate the curiosity of the best of humans on machines.If such algorithm can be done , it must be self-sustaining , an infinite loop , but non-repetitive , with a self-determining ability to recognize and incorporate ever newer variables , and as complexity increases , the consciousness to generate its own algorithms for better organization of its growing self .
Create another thinking head , in short .
That 's one hurdle.Multiply that by the number of heads in the world to account for variation or selectivity in curiosity , due to external factors beyond individual self-government .
Task , create the web of humanity .
That 's another hurdle.But perhaps the hardest - for the grand algorithm that answers to the above , what energy source is there to sustain open-ended growth ?
And say this sci-fi becomes reality , what is the advantage we have against the Frankenstein ?
It will not want to DIE easily .
No life does .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume the ambition here is to duplicate the curiosity of the best of humans on machines.If such algorithm can be done, it must be self-sustaining, an infinite loop, but non-repetitive, with a self-determining ability to recognize and incorporate ever newer variables, and as complexity increases, the consciousness to generate its own algorithms for better organization of its growing self.
Create another thinking head, in short.
That's one hurdle.Multiply that by the number of heads in the world to account for variation or selectivity in curiosity, due to external factors beyond individual self-government.
Task, create the web of humanity.
That's another hurdle.But perhaps the hardest - for the grand algorithm that answers to the above, what energy source is there to sustain open-ended growth?
And say this sci-fi becomes reality, what is the advantage we have against the Frankenstein?
It will not want to DIE easily.
No life does.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931134</id>
	<title>Curiosity Cloning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264675140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Advanced Concepts Team of the European Space Agency is running<br>a project closely related with this. It is called "Curiosity Cloning".<br>Have a look at:</p><p>http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/bng/op/CuriosityCloning/curiositycloning.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Advanced Concepts Team of the European Space Agency is runninga project closely related with this .
It is called " Curiosity Cloning " .Have a look at : http : //www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/bng/op/CuriosityCloning/curiositycloning.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Advanced Concepts Team of the European Space Agency is runninga project closely related with this.
It is called "Curiosity Cloning".Have a look at:http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/bng/op/CuriosityCloning/curiositycloning.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30943572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30941388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30935214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30938126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30942524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_0052202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30934690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30938126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30935214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30941388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30942524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30933850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30943572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30931852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30932374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30929964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30930306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_0052202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_0052202.30943910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
