Andrew Babian said:
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is
with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind.
Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for the demos.
Try the following rephrasing: Richard believes and is trying to
convince others that complexity is a necessary pre-condition for
intelligence. If that is correct, then virtually every system to date
cannot rise to intelligence (since they are not complex).
Where I personally find Richard's statements a little strong (mainly in
emphasis) is that those systems are certainly useful in the same way that
Newton's Laws are useful -- as a necessary precondition to the next step --
and I think that Richard comes across as a bit too negative for his ideas to
get as much traction as they would on their own merits. On the other hand,
if yo don't slap people upside the head, they frequently don't listen.
A corollary of Richard's statements that is less obvious is that he is
very much a proponent of bottom-up systems whereas most previous systems are
mostly to-down. Top-down designed systems, unless over-hauled or *much*
less regulated than is usual, generally aren't going to manage to be
complex. I, personally, am very much a proponent of bottom-up systems and
can understand Richard's complexity point but feel that it is actually a
sidelight to what I believe is his actual best point (which he's not
succeeding in getting to :-).
P.S. Your e-mail did come across as somewhat insulting in my perception --
but I'm frequently guilty of that as well.
-----
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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50773032-d4390b
