From: Rafael Anschau (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Dec 02 2000 - 12:25:23 MST
>To sum it up: Is there some way to combine the fuzzy quality >that
>relies on with the rigid quality of not making a single mistake? >Is
>generalisation a limit to intelligence?
Hofstader mentions that in GEB. Here's the way I see it:
When you generalize, you chunk information, jump out of the system and plays
with the generalized information(but loose some control over the sub-details
of it). Like in chess... You first learn the rules, then a few traps, then
go to tactics. Afer tactics becomes obvious, you go to a higher level , you
think strategically. At this point, you might filter the board SO MUCH to
the point that you might miss the simple fact that a bishop is attacking a
rook. (something amateurs often won't do).
The way I play is something like:
Check for some success in strategical level.
Check for success in tactical level.
Check for success in avoiding traps.
Check for success at the rawest level(is there a threat going on now).
Since the "brain only pays atention to one thing at the time"
(sorry I don't know a neurological, low level way of putting this) not
making a mistakes will occour if you
operate at each level of abstraction at the time, or find
ways to leave subneural nets operating at the lower levels
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT