On 12/2/06, Mark Waser wrote:
My contention is that the pattern that it found was simply not translated into terms you could understand and/or explained. Further, and more importantly, the pattern matcher *doesn't* understand it's results either and certainly could build upon them -- thus, it *fails* the test as far as being the central component of an RSIAI or being able to provide evidence as to the required behavior of such.
Mark, I think you are making two very basic wrong assumptions. 1) That humans are able to understand everything if it is explained to them simply enough and they are given unlimited time. 2) That it is even possible to explain some very complex ideas in a simple enough fashion. Consider teaching the sub-normal. After much repetition they can be trained to do simple tasks. Not understanding 'why', but they can remember instructions eventually. Even high IQ humans have the same equipment, just a bit better. They still have limits to how much they can remember, how much information they can hold in their heads and access. If you can't remember all the factors at once, then you can't understand the result. You can write down the steps, all the different data that affect the result, but you can't assemble it in your brain to get a result. And I think the chess or Go examples are a good example. People who think that they can look through the game records and understand why they lost are just not trained chess or go players. They have a good reason to call some people 'Go masters' or 'chess masters'. I used to play competitive chess and I can assure you that when our top board player consistently beat us lesser mortals we could rarely point at move 23 and say 'we shouldn't have done that'. It is *far* more subtle than that. If you think you can do that, then you just don't understand the problem. BillK ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
