On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure I have ever seen anybody successfully rephrase your complexity > argument back at you; since nobody understands what you mean it's not > surprising that people are complacent about it. >
Derek, I'll not paraphrase the argument itself, but the conclusion. Thinking can't be designed from ground up, little success after success, module after module, elaboration and generalization. Instead, it can only be build as an opaque mess, and in a clean laboratory it's not possible for us miserable apes to invent it. But we have a working prototype, brains, so by limiting the design by properties we know from studying cognitive science, it's possible to leave few enough possibilities to enumerate by (more or less) blind search. That is what Richard's framework is supposed to do: you feed in the restrictions, and it automatically tests a whole set of designs limited by such restrictions. As a result, you experiment with restrictions and not with individual designs. Within each restriction set, there are designs that behave very differently, but framework allows you to sort out the weed and luckily find some gemstones. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com