--
At 11:36 PM 10/12/2000 -0400, David Honig wrote:
> You seem to be supposing that human perceptual algorithms (and the
> illusions they produce) are somehow unknowable or unreplicable by
> nonanimal machinery.
>
> This is meat chauvinism.
Claims of computer vision, and computer walki
At 11:54 AM 10/12/00 -0400, James A.. Donald wrote:
> --
>At 12:59 PM 10/11/2000 -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote:
> > An interesting idea has surfaced on the freenet-chat list: is it
possible to
> > build a program that creates some sort of a puzzle, whose answer the
> > generating computer knows
>> Marcel Popescu[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>> My proposal was to randomly create an image, which should be 1) easily
>> recognizable by a human (say the image of a pet), but 2) complex enough so
>> that no known algorithm could "reverse-engineer" this. [You need a
>> randomly-generated image
At 12:59 PM -0400 10/11/00, Marcel Popescu wrote:
>An interesting idea has surfaced on the freenet-chat list: is it possible to
>build a program that creates some sort of a puzzle, whose answer the
>generating computer knows (and can verify), but which can only be answered
>by a human being, not b
At 12:59 PM 10/11/00 -0400, Marcel Popescu wrote:
>Real-To: "Marcel Popescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>An interesting idea has surfaced on the freenet-chat list: is it possible to
>build a program that creates some sort of a puzzle, whose answer the
>generating computer knows (and can verify), but w
> --
> Marcel Popescu[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> An interesting idea has surfaced on the freenet-chat list: is it possible
> to
> build a program that creates some sort of a puzzle, whose answer the
> generating computer knows (and can verify), but which can only be answered
> by a
