Yan King Yin wrote:
On 8/5/06, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. IMO, a simple rule like this does not correctly capture human
usage of qualifiers across contexts, and is not adequate for AI
purposes
Perhaps this rule is a decent high-level
Yan King Yin wrote:
...
2. If you think your method is better, the mechanism underlying your
rule might be more complex than predicate logic. That's kind of strange.
YKY
Not strange at all. The brain had a long evolutionary history before
language was ever created. Languages are attempts
Charles D Hixson wrote:
An excellent warning on proofs of correctness is at:
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html
Hear, hear.
But I don't take away the lesson that not even formal methods are
powerful enough. They would've caught this if, for
On 8/6/06, Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not strange at all.The brain had a long evolutionary history before language was ever created.Languages are attempts to model parts of the organization of the brain (and NOT attempts at a complete modeling).
Therefore it's reasonable to
On 8/5/06, Yan King Yin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the brain is actually quite smart, perhaps due to intense selection
for intelligence over a long period of time dating back to fishes. I
suspect that the brain actually has an internal representation somewhat
similar to predicate logic.
On 8/6/06, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I too am a little puzzled by Ben's reservations here. Is it because Yan implied that the rule would be applied literally, and
therefore it would be fragile (e.g. there might be a case where the threshold for significantly was missed by a
On 8/6/06, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the brain is actually quite smart, perhaps due to intense selection for intelligence over a long period of time dating back to fishes.I suspect that the brain actually has an internal representation somewhat
similar to predicate logic.
