Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Thu Apr 27 2006 - 21:49:36 MDT

Next message: Dani Eder: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Previous message: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
In reply to: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Next in thread: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Reply: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Reply: Philip Goetz: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Richard Loosemore wrote:
>
> Short term memory does not have 7 items in it.

I know. But it makes a convenient magic number.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://intelligence.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Next message: Dani Eder: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Previous message: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
In reply to: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Next in thread: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Reply: Richard Loosemore: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Reply: Philip Goetz: "Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT