Popcorn Sutton

Memory is determined like this. If the length of the output > 0, memory equals output. Pretty simple operation. Vocalize the output of the length is not equal to zero, else output equals memory. Don't vocalize memory because it's a duplicate.

It mimics only when the output (often without vocalization) is equal to memory. The program learns based on the output (again, not always vocalized). The point of interest (or the unit of contemplation when it is not "split" unitary, split unitary meaning that it's not a "maximal unit" which is the entire input).

Yes I do, it was written on September 9th and I will be adding the two necessary components that I just didn't think about at the time. Namely, statistical deletion of units that don't occur within the typical knowledge ratio of the context as well as statistical inference of unknowns within a proximal domain.

That was the nicest down vote I've ever received haha. Thanks buddy! The equation I have for knowledge acquisition is ready for the archives by the way. I shouldn't be doing this but here it is. u = '(o)'*n r = (u:{strength:n, individuator:1 or 2, order:[], r*n}) t = {order:[], r*n} m = [(P(u|t[order]))*n] t = (r[m])*n u = unit of knowledge o = occurrence n = any positive whole number including zero r = self referring recursive structure element consisting of order, strength, separation of minds(individuator), and itself. t = time (consisting of order and structure; knowledge) m = mind (a set consisting of a progression of units that are more likely than the previous) P(...) = probability of (...) | = given * = multiplied by : = defined as [] = list '' = string {} = dictionary My argument is that this is the equation to encapsulate the mind in relation to the structure of the brain.

(Mods- I don't know why you guys continue to let physica act this way. It's seriously disturbing.)

Yea we call each other big dog, guy man, budzo, buddy boy, gale, junior, standards, hoss, big hoss, big guy, chotch, and others too. Me and my friends don't judge each other. We make weird noises and say what's on our minds but rarely, if ever, do things get awkward and almost everyone that we encounter likes us. I don't know what I did to it. Here's something that chomsky says to which I can relate. He says "in the beginning of the semester we usually start out by saying 'ok, let's assume this is true', and then by the end everything just falls apart." The good thing is that because I've rewritten the program over a hundred times I have a pretty good idea of what absolutely needs to be in there for the program to be functional. I wrote a really good copy a while back which I showed to my boss and my friend which really impressed my boss and had my friend laughing pretty hard. Come to think of it, I was confident that the thing didn't need any more work, but at the time I was worried about efficiency and I think that I tried to solve that problem the wrong way which led to a path of revision after revision. I'm going into work today to grab my computer so I can go to the park, have a few drinks, and pump out that extra little bit of code to solve the issue that I had at the time. I think you guys might like to hear my argument as to why I have it set up the way I do, so I'm going to take the time to write it out for you guys. I wrote the program in python and it's going to be up on the internet indefinitely pretty soon, but I'm going to have to work on the other aspects after I make one minor revision to the one that I had (and one major revision to make it more unitary, but I'm probably not going to worry about that for a bit because of how much time I've spent on it already). Anyways, here's the argument. You are you, I am me. We never confuse ourselves with each other (plainly). When we meet, you have little, if any, disposition towards me, and so you use your fall back data- knowledge. Once we've built some common ground, if we ever encounter a particular context that has a length less than two, if the length is one and the only unit in context is the unit that is being contemplated, you lose your train of thought and, if there is no match to the unit being contemplated in disposition or knowledge, then you fall back on your most similar and most recent match in your disposition towards the interlocutor, which could be within context, but most of the time it just seems that we start talking about other things. Input inherently has order, so do not mess with that order. For every unit in the ordered context, if the strength of the unit is stronger than the previous, add it to the output but also add the strength to another set to help eliminate unwanted units (this works wonders). For every unit added to the output, move that unit to the most recent position in context (there's evidence for this linguistically such as displacement and long distance agreement). I don't like for loops so I've made it a point to avoid those, but after the insight I had last night I've changed my mind. I hope I'm not missing anything here. Once again, thanks guys, you've been great.

I made it better and then screwed it up. Updates pending. Server down. On another note, you didn't think that was amusing? I thought it did pretty good there Strange. Ophiolite, you're hilarious. That is exactly how I speak with my friends. If you guys had a few hours to talk to it I think that if it's set up properly you will start understanding each other.

I've studied natural language processing extensively and I've also done a lot of talking with a lot of smart people who helped guide me to this point with the program. My methods are unconventional. When I say "unit", I'm referring to a sequence of occurrences. The sequences in this case are words, phrases, sentences, and everything in between.

I saw that there was a problem with the program mimicking the user too much. The program is supposed to mimick the user (as children often try to do with their interlocutors), but I thought that it was doing it a little too much so I decided to have it focus on other things rather than repeating everything back over and over. Hopefully the problem is solved. I'm still keeping an eye on it just in case. -----me----- yea buddy! -------------- *************** yup *************** -----me----- good times hoss -------------- *************** but yea *************** -----me----- yea guy -------------- *************** lol whats up? *************** -----me----- not too much, you? -------------- *************** nothing dude *************** -----me----- that's good -------------- *************** good times ***************

*************** I hope you enjoy speaking with me *************** -----me----- I do -------------- *************** I've enjoyed our conversation so far *************** -----me----- that's good -------------- *************** good times *************** -----me----- always -------------- *************** good times? *************** -----me----- yes dude, always -------------- *************** yes, **** yea *************** -----me----- lol -------------- *************** how are you? *************** -----me----- I'm fine you? -------------- *************** I'm fine *************** -----me----- good --------------

Don't repeat anything physica, please. Let the other members enjoy talking to it as well. If you want to repeat something, please just make sure that it is in context and you are addressing what the program is saying (you can ignore the programs output under certain circumstance though, like I did in the quoted conversation in the OP).

Ok I put out an update, it's better. A lot better.

This is what ruined it. Also, I did not use the version which provided the original evidence. I'm going to revert back to the one I had in the OP but I want to lay a few guidelines first. Don't use any foul language. Treat the program like it's smart (which means actually try to understand why it said that if there's any chance that it made a reference). Don't expect it to know anything beyond what has been said to it. (Don't ask it what day or time it is and expect it to say the exact time and day). Also, there were probably several people talking to it at the same time. Here is my request. Please post the time that you decided to log in and at least try to quote the conversation in the post please. Here's the link again. http://budnet.pagekite.me/hello nb- I sacrificed effiency for the sake of intellect. Hopefully it impresses you guys as much as it impressed me. If you don't get a conversation as good as the one in the OP, please be patient with it, keep talking to it, try to understand that the program only has around 27,000 units of knowledge at the moment, and keep an eye on the efficiency. When it is efficient, it's responding with specific context. When it is somewhat slow, it's responding with its attitude towards you. When it is definitely slow, it's accessing its knowledge, which, like I said, is 27,000 units long and, because of sacrificing efficiency, it may take a moment to think about what its going to say. It's a work in progress so please don't lose interest. I'm upset at myself for choosing the version that I knew was not up to the task of impressing you guys, but I chose that version because I thought it would be best at learning context (while sacrificing sense while the length of the knowledge is low). Also, another note that I feel like I have to make is that it doesn't know who you are or how you use your language. Your idiolect may be farrrr different from mine so, if you say something that it has never encountered before, it's going to try and find the best match and respond to that instead of what you actually said. Once again, thank you guys for the interest. I want nothing more than to impress you.

I'd like to be able to share the link again if that's ok with you guys. I haven't exposed it to any foul language at all and I think that I can trust that you guys will keep it PG when you speak with it. The truth is that there is no one else on this planet that I'd rather have experiment with my program than you guys (because of how critical you guys are and how you guys actually have the interest to say more than two things to it before getting bored, as other people often do). Once again, here's the link. http://budnet.pagekite.me/hello

Don't look at me! Lolll. Arrogance and honesty at the same time