On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Russell Wallace >> Why do you think that? All the evidence is to the contrary - the >> examples we have of figuring out efficient learning, from evolution to >> childhood play to formal education and training to science to hardward >> and software engineering, do not work with just a static corpus. > > It is not evidence.
Yes it is. > Evidence is an indication that depends on the > referred event: evidence is there when referred event is there, but > evidence is not there when refereed event is absent. And if the referred thing (entities acquiring intelligence from static corpus in the absence of environment) existed we would expect to see it happening, if (as I claim) it does not exist then we would expect to see all intelligence-acquiring entities needing interaction with an environment; we observe the latter, which by the above criterion is evidence for my theory. > What would you > expect to see, depending on correctness of your assumption? Literally, > it translates to animals having a phase where they sit cross-legged > and meditate on accumulated evidence, until they gain enlightenment, > become extremely efficient learners and launch Singularity... ...er, I think there's a miscommunication here - I'm claiming this is _not_ possible. I thought you were claiming it is? ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
