On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:54 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:09 AM Rob Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I just always believed the goal of compression was wrong. > > You're really confused.
I'm confused? Maybe. But I have examples. You don't address my examples. You just enumerate a list of definitions. Argument by definition is a common technique. Almost universal in online forums. I tend to think all truth has a subjective aspect. So definitions are intrinsically qualifiable. It's possible to argue indefinitely about them, anyway. And, a higher bar, your definitions extend to defining science. That reveals an even deeper insecurity. I recall Kuhn observed that people only argue about what principles should underlie science at times of paradigm tension, when things are not working properly. If things are useful, no-one worries about principles. When things are working "science" remains just a body of practice. Which like all bodies of practice retains contradictions and inconsistencies. So your need to define principles of science is indicative to me that your body of practice may be showing holes. The hole in this case is probably that you have no argument to my examples, other than definitions. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T42db51de471cbcb9-M606824999ba36ea90306ddf9 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
