On Sep 2, 1:56 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> */Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
> nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
> computation... meant in the sense that "cognition is computation", where
> computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe
> used to manipulate abstract symbols)
> </search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Eliezer+Yudkowsky&sp­ell=1>.....
> *You don't have to work so hard to walk away from that approach...*

Hi Colin,

The chess computer 'Deep Blue' was computational, and could play chess
better than the (then) chess world champion, Gary Kasparov.  But that
didn't mean that the programmers understood all the chess, or all the
chess had already been played.  So I don't think your argument is a
good one.  You can't rebut Yudkowsy's approach as easily as that ;)

But I kind of understand your sentiment, and agree that science can't
(and shouldn't be) reduced to mere Bayesian probability shuffling.
There are aesthetic judgements involved in science, and I don't think
any precise mathematical definition of these aesthetic notions is
possible, as Bruno has already opined.    Yudkowsky's excessive faith
in Bayesian Induction is definitely his weakness.  But that doesn't
mean we can't make a computational super-intelligence.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to