The only thing I find surprising in that story is:
"The findings go against one prominent theory that says children can only show
smart, flexible behavior if they have conceptual knowledge – knowledge about
how things work..."
I don't see how anybody who's watched human beings at all can come w
Derek Zahn wrote:
Brain modeling certainly does seem to be in the news lately. Checking
out nextbigfuture.com, I was reading about that petaflop computer
Roadrunner and articles about it say that they are or will soon be
emulating the entire visual cortex -- a billion neurons. I'm sure I'm
Brad Paulsen wrote:
Hear Ye, Hear Ye...
CHILDREN LEARN SMART BEHAVIORS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY KNOW
http://www.physorg.com/news132839991.html
It's garbage science. Or at least, it is a garbage headline.
There is a whole body of experiments done with adults in which subjects
are asked to l
Mike A.:
Well, if you're convinced that infinity and the uncomputable are
imaginary things, then you've got a self-consistent view that I can't
directly argue against. But are you really willing to say that
seemingly understandable notions such as the problem of deciding
whether a given Turing mac
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike A.:
>
> Well, if you're convinced that infinity and the uncomputable are
> imaginary things, then you've got a self-consistent view that I can't
> directly argue against. But are you really willing to say that
> seeming
"No nonsense, just finite sense. What is this with verification that a
machine doesn't halt? One can't do it, so what is the problem?"
The idea would be (if Mike is really willing to go that far): "It
makes sense to say that a given Turing machine DOES halt; I know what
that means. But to say that
--- On Tue, 6/17/08, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CHILDREN LEARN SMART BEHAVIORS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY KNOW
> http://www.physorg.com/news132839991.html
Another example: children learn to form grammatically correct sentences before
they understand the difference between a noun an
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "No nonsense, just finite sense. What is this with verification that a
> machine doesn't halt? One can't do it, so what is the problem?"
>
> The idea would be (if Mike is really willing to go that far): "It
> makes sense to
> Mike A.:
>
> Well, if you're convinced that infinity and the uncomputable are
> imaginary things, then you've got a self-consistent view that I can't
> directly argue against. But are you really willing to say that
> seemingly understandable notions such as the problem of deciding
> whether a giv
V. N.,
What is inhuman to me, is to claim that the halting problem is no
problem on such a basis: that the statement "Turing machine X does not
halt" only is true of Turing machines that are *provably* non-halting.
And this is the view we are forced into if we abandon the reality of
the uncomputabl
People interested on this thread subject might be interested to read a
paper we wrote some years ago published by World Scientific:
---
Hector Zenil, Francisco Hernandez-Quiroz, "On the possible
Computational Power of the Human Mind", WORLDVIEWS, SCIENCE AND US,
edited by Carlos Gershenson, Dieder
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> V. N.,
> What is inhuman to me, is to claim that the halting problem is no
> problem on such a basis: that the statement "Turing machine X does not
> halt" only is true of Turing machines that are *provably* non-halting.
>
Vladimir Nesov,
Then do you agree with my hypothetical extremist version of Mike?
(Aside: For the example we are talking about, it is totally necessary
to stick the undecidable cases in F rather than T: if a Turing machine
halts, then it is possible to prove that it halts (simply by running
it fo
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hector Zenil,
>
> I do not think I understand you. Your argument seems similar to the following:
>
> "I do not see why Turing machines are necessary. If we can compute a
> function f(x) by some Turing machine, then we cou
> Mike Archbold,
>
> It seems you've made a counterargument without meaning to.
>
> "When we make this transition, it seems to me that the shift is so radical
> that it is impossible to justify making the step, because as I mentioned
> it involves a surreptitious shift from quantity to quality."
>
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brad Paulsen wrote:
> CHILDREN LEARN SMART BEHAVIORS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY KNOW
> http://www.physorg.com/news132839991.html
It's garbage science. Or at least, it is a garbage headline.
There is a whole body of experim
From "The More stuff we already know" department...
NEW RESEARCH ON OCTOPUSES SHEDS LIGHT ON MEMORY
http://www.physorg.com/news132920831.html
Cheers,
Brad
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vladimir Nesov,
>
> Then do you agree with my hypothetical extremist version of Mike?
>
> (Aside: For the example we are talking about, it is totally necessary
> to stick the undecidable cases in F rather than T: if a Turing
18 matches
Mail list logo
