From: Cliff Stabbert (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 16:25:16 MDT
Jumping into this thread late, I strongly agree with most of the
points Ben Goertzel has been making in this thread. A few notes of my
"Rationality" cannot, of itself, supply
1) motives and goals
2) creative ideas and original hypotheses
3) low- to medium-level cognition
re 1) Given motives and goals, the rational process is invaluable in
achieving them. Note that it is still not /sufficient/ -- one still
needs to create and test hypotheses:
2) Given a hypothesis, testing it is a rational process. At least,
once you've abstracted your perceptions into some sort of language
(i.e., one amenable to symbolic logic operations):
3) Perception/cognition is itself a non-/sub-rational and at times
"We are all greater artists than we realize"
So "where" do 1, 2 and 3 originate? The question only makes sense, or
seems to, if the way you split the mind is into "rationality" and
"that other stuff." But isn't such a notion, to put it mildly,
I am surprised that this view would even be a subject of discussion
here on SL4.
Saturday, August 24, 2002, 4:40:26 PM, James Rogers wrote:
JR> My objection to this is primarily that most intuition
JR> that is worth anything CAN be resolved through
JR> introspection and thought. People can usually piece
JR> together the reasons for their intuition if they think
JR> about it hard enough.
Nonsense. If this were even close to the truth, creating AI would be
For a nice example of an intuitive process that /was/ eventually broken
down through introspection and thought, see
Note the incredible amount of work involved with such analysis.
A few final notes: 2) is discussed at length and with great clarity in
_Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ by Robert M. Pirsig. 3) is
addressed throughout Douglas R. Hofstadter's work, but especially
_Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies_.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:00:22 MDT