From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 25 2006 - 15:14:21 MDT
Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>> Just for the record, my main issue with Loosemore so far is that I'm
>> still waiting for a bold, precise, falsifiable prediction - never mind
>> a useful technique - out of his philosophy. So you don't know a bunch
>> of stuff. Great. Personally, I don't know the position of every atom
>> in Pluto. What *do* you know, and why is it useful?
> Falsifiable predictions are not the issue, and I think you know that: I
> have said before (very clearly) that this is a question at the paradigm
> You have read enough that I am sure I do not need to educate you on the
> difference between paradigm-level issues and normal-science issues.
Yes. Paradigm-level revolutions generate much bolder, much more
> If this were a debate about particular results within a science, your
> request for falsifiable predictions would be justified. But because you
> *know* full well that I have made my statements at the paradigm level
> -- in other words, for people who might be reading this and do not know
> what I mean by that, I am attacking the foundational assumptions and the
> methodology of the mainstream AI approach -- your request for a bold
> precise, flasifiable prediction is specious.
> [I have said this in the past, and if I recall correctly all I got in
> reply was a dismissive comment that said something like "when someone
> doesn't have anything concrete to say, of course they always trot out
> the "paradigm" excuse". I sincerely hope this does not happen again.]
Dear Richard Loosemore:
When someone doesn't have anything concrete to say, of course they
always trot out the "paradigm" excuse.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT