From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 21:04:40 MDT
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > Mapping a person's words into a model of their future words is not that
> > easy. Essentially, it requires mapping their words into a model of
> > their mind. This is a very hard "inverse problem." I require more
> > data in order to believe I have a reasonably good model of someone,
> > than you do. Those 2 messages of GK did not give me enough data to
> > form a plausibly confident model of the guy's mind.... Either you're
> > way better at mind-modeling based on scanty data than I am, or you're
> > just quicker to jump to conclusions in this regard...
> Or I'm judging against a different criterion than you use, one
> with a much
> narrower aperture, so that available data was sufficient to determine
> (with margin for error) that the model thus mapped was outside
> the aperture.
Yes, I agree with your judgment as compared to your narrower criterion, but
not with your criterion...
> PS: Cliff, the fact that Ben and I are speaking cryptically should be
> enough information for you to determine what we are speaking
> about. Hint:
> It has nothing to do with religion. (Unless I've mapped Ben
> and he *is* talking about religion.)
You've mapped me correctly... this part of my mind is one of the parts you
have an accurate model of ;) [at least according to my second-order
> Crypticism can sometimes be very useful, and I won't tell you when, but
> it's *always* fun.
I won't bore you with counterexamples ;-p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT