On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't really followed this very closely. I kind of get the feeling > that Mike is proposing some kind of intelligence special sauce that > involves some type of "figurative" thinking. It sounded like it was about > images or something. I'm sorry, but people are collections of hacks. > There just isn't going to be one single thing that does all that we are > asking for in intelligence. > > And there's our ability to tell when we don't know something. To me, that > really just sounds like an artifact of how we are put together, and > doesn't really sound like something wonderful and special that we should > try to achieve. If we can get the behavior we want from exhaustive > search, but it doesn't have some quick aspect of a feeling of > "recognition" before the content comes on line, I personally wouldn't > worry about it. > andi >
You can't tell whether there is "one thing" or not, you don't know. He dreams up a black box without explaining what it is, and then points at it and says "So there! Here is a solution!". Problem is not that there is only *one* box, but that this box doesn't work as an explanation. It might be a starting point for analysis, but there should be some actual analysis in this case, which apparently there is none. Tintner is trolling this forum for a long time, without any noticeable progress, repeating the same impression over and over. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
