On 07/07/2016 02:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I don't understand why you connect special purpose devices with paper math vs. computation. I claim the problem with paper math is that 1) the former does not carry or enforce correctness checks, 2) it is not put in context -- things are pulled out of thin air as "the reader should know this", and 3) there isn't a formal mapping or harness to a universal computer.
Well, I disagree with all 3 of those assertions. But it's a soft disagreement. I rely on softening the definitions of "correctness checks", "put in context", "harness to universal computer". Paper math is a social enterprise and that sociality is the correctness check. Similarly, it is put in the context of its application and/or the larger body of math. And the "universal computer" it is harnessed to is (proximally) the human brain/CNS and (distally) logic/reasoning as a whole. Paper math is a semi-semantic computation. This is nothing more than a restatement of Hilbert's program. It is a (canonical) use case of a special purpose device: the human brain. It's interesting and meaningful to ask whether or not computers can do the math humans do. I think the answer keeps coming up "yes" ... but people smarter than me are not convinced. So, we shouldn't be stubbornly reductionist. It hurts nobody to let them have the distinction ... at least for now and possibly forever.
If all domain-specific artifacts were built up with machine readable ontologies, then the general intelligent agents will have threads to pull to start putting the artifacts in context. Perhaps some kinds of agents, like humans, would benefit from additional `analogy modules' to assist with mapping large semantic graphs into similar pre-existing ones. That would be an accelerator for learning, not a question of having a sufficient semantic representation.
Well, OK. But there's still an assumption that the infrastructure will be complete, high quality, and credible. Is there room for gaming and misinformation in such systems? Can our ontological mesh lie to people? ... create idiot savants? ... be used to rig elections? If so, then it most assuredly _is_ a question of sufficient semantic grounding. -- glen ep ropella ⊥ 971-280-5699 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
