"When you want to show someone something cool And they ask "What's cool about it?" Don＂t try to e x p l a i n Try to ask them what other things they could find cool that you could show them It＂s annoying to explain why things are cool over and over again And why is that annoying? Because it＂s annoying to understand what＂s cool about something Hence: How will it be cool for the person you are showing it to when they are trying to understand it and the understanding part is already uncool for you? "
Cool. I mean.. I mean it is cool right? Well trying to explain why something is cool can be tedious. No wait a minute. I can explain why something is cool if the basis of appreciation exists in the other person's perspective. If not, I can use an abstraction (like the 'basis of appreciation') to start to explain why I think something is cool even if the other person does not pick up on it. (Dig?) You should not get annoyed with other people when you are tying to explain cool. On the other hand, the Phonz did show some flashes of annyance when Potsie or one of the other characters was being a little square. But keep your uncool brief dude. That's you, not your square friend. Jim Bromer On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:33 PM Manuel Korfmann <[email protected]> wrote: > ```ruby > When you want to show someone something cool And they ask "What's cool > about it?" Don＂t try to e x p l a i n Try to ask them what other things > they could find cool that you could show them It＂s annoying to explain why > things are cool over and over again And why is that annoying? Because it＂s > annoying to understand what＂s cool about something Hence: How will it be > cool for the person you are showing it to when they are trying to > understand it and the understanding part is already uncool for you? > ``` > > > On 8. Aug 2019, at 19:05, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "complex things are composition of simpler but more general things" > > > > I've long felt that the general things, really invariant principles, > > are rooted in metaphysics. But respectable scientists don't like to > > say metaphysics because it conjures up images of Heidegger's "pompous > > nonsense" (which is how Bunge defines metaphysics in the popular > > sense) and somebody working on philosophy is bound to get nowhere, > > right? Really, "first principles" is a more scientific or at least > > more sober sounding term. > > > > On 8/8/19, Brett N Martensen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jim, You are right on the money! > >> It's called transfer learning and comes from having generalization in a > >> compositional hierarchy in which more complex things are composition of > >> simpler but more general things. And the lowest level simplest things > yet > >> most general are the stimuli that come from sensors and that also makes > it > >> grounded. > >> Brett ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T187cd9f14076b86f-M4d3419707e0d95e87b143d4a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
