Vladimir Nesov wrote:
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.
Hmmmm.... I detect a parody..?
That is not what I intended to say.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
