Agreed. Colin would need to show the inadequacy of both inborn and learned bias to show the need for extra input. But I think the more essential objection is that extra input is still consistent with computationalism.
--Abram On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Ben, >> >> I have heard the argument for point 2 before, in the book by Pinker, >> "How the Mind Works". It is the inverse-optics problem: physics can >> predict what image will be formed on the retina from material >> arrangements, but if we want to go backwards and find the arrangements >> from the retinal image, we do not have enough data at all. Pinker >> concludes that we do it using cognitive bias. > > I understood Pinker's argument, but not Colin Hales's ... > > Also, note cognitive bias can be learned rather than inborn (though in this > case I imagine it's both). > > Probably we would be very bad at seeing environment different from those we > evolved in, until after we'd gotten a lot of experience in them... > > ben > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
