If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs hypothesis is wrong. The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the hypothesis. And MW has given not a tiny argument for his hypothesis that a natural language understanding system can easily be a scientist.
-Matthias -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Oktober 2008 22:48 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI > You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI. But MW and I have not agreed on anything. >Hence the wiki entry on scientific method: >"Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, >imagination, and creativity" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method >This is basic stuff. And this is fundamentally what I was trying to say. I don't think of myself as "philosophically ignorant". I believe you've reversed the intention of my post. It's probably my fault for choosing my words poorly. I could have conveyed the nuances of the argument better as I understood them. Next time! ------------------------------------------- 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/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
