BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/4/06, Mark Waser wrote:
>
> Explaining our actions is the reflective part of our minds evaluating the
> reflexive part of our mind. The reflexive part of our minds, though,
> operates analogously to a machine running on compiled code with the
> compilation
On 12/5/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your reasoning is getting surreal.
You seem to have a real difficulty in admitting that humans behave
irrationally for a lot (most?) of the time. Don't you read newspapers?
You can redefine rationality if you like to say that all the crazy
people are
On 12/4/06, Mark Waser wrote:
Explaining our actions is the reflective part of our minds evaluating the
reflexive part of our mind. The reflexive part of our minds, though,
operates analogously to a machine running on compiled code with the
compilation of code being largely *not* under the con
But I'm not at all sure how important that difference is . . . . With the
brain being a massively parallel system, there isn't necessarily a huge
advantage in "compiling knowledge" (I can come up with both advantages and
disadvantages) and I suspect that there are more than enough surprises that
On the other hand, I think that lack of compilation is going to turn out to
be a *very* severe problem for non-massively parallel systems
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Well, of course they can be explained by me -- but the acronym for
> that sort of explanation is "BS"
I take your point with important caveats (that you allude to). Yes, nearly
all decisions are made as reflexes or pattern-matchings on what is
effectively compiled knowledge; however, it is the
achine is (or, in reverse, no explanation = no intelligence).
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
>> We're reach
We're reaching the point of agreeing to disagree except . . . .
Are you really saying that nearly all of your decisions can't be explained
(by you)?
Well, of course they can be explained by me -- but the acronym for
that sort of explanation is "BS"
One of Nietzsche's many nice quotes is (parap
On 11/29/06, Philip Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/29/06, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I defy you to show me *any* black-box method that has predictive power
> outside the bounds of it's training set. All that the black-box methods are
> doing is curve-fitting. If you give t
Hi,
I would also argue that a large number of weak pieces of evidence also
means that Novamente does not *understand* the domain that it is making a
judgment in. It is merely totally up weight of evidence.
I would say that intuition often consists, internally, in large part,
of summing up
10 matches
Mail list logo
