From: Simon Gordon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 11:54:32 MDT
--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <email@example.com>
> I'm pretty sure the math of all this has been argued
> before on SL4.
> This entire discussion is reflogging the long-dead
> horse of arbitrary
> and infinite compression, not a productive pursuit.
> A rigorous
> construction of the question would have made it
> obvious, but instead we
> are getting caught up in semantics.
Nice. So semantics is nolonger good enough for you
hmmm? because math is your religion? ;-)
So you are happy to let this, what is actually an
interesting discussion on sl4 RIP already? This topic
has profound implications for AI. I am basically
saying that human intelligence is not necessarily
reducible to math, and even if it was, that would be
irrelevant to the functioning of the intelligence
anyway. If we want to replicate human intelligence in
a machine from the ground-up, the "all is math"
mentality needs to change. Literary intelligence is as
important, if not more so, as visual intelligence.
Natural language comprehesion is vital. To have any
hope of sucess we need to start from this and not try
to build up to it, even if that were possible. We want
a machine that can pass the turing test, not one that
can spout "42" whenever we ask it a deep question.
Some deep questions need Goedelian insight, and formal
systems have a habit of not giving you that.
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT