On Sep 22, 11:53 pm, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc,
> Your closing line is appreciated.
> Yet: I still cannot get it: how can you include into an algorithm
> those features that had not yet been discovered? Look at it
> historically: if you composed such compendium 3000 yeas ago would you
> have included 'blank potential' unfilled algorithm for those aspects
> that had been discovered as part of the human intelligence since then?
> And forwardly: how much would you keep blank for newly addable
> features in human intelligence for the next millennia?
> Is B2 a closed and complete image?
> B1 (IMO) includes potential so far undiscovered beyond the "knowable".
> How is that part of the algorithm?> John M

Yes, its intuitively hard to swallow, John, but it's actually what
evolution has been naturally doing... for instance the parents of
Albert Einstein were not as smart as Einstein, so something smarter
came from something less smart.

What I anticipate is that the original algorithm contains a few very
simple, basic concepts (which I call 'Prims' or 'Primatives) which are
very vague and fuzzy, but in some strange sense, these are all that
are required to encompass all knowledge!  Hard to swallow yes, but
consider the process of moving from a general idea to a more specific
idea--- remember that game of questions where someone thinks of a word
of you have to gues of what the word is.. you know... Is it animal,
vegetable, mineral? and you keep asking more specific questions until
you guess the word.

So I think learning is just *elaboration* (optimization) of what is
actually in some strange sense already in your mind, in a vague fuzzy
way.  New knowledge is just making what is already there more
specific.   Rather like the scultpor who already sees a work of art in
a block of stone... he's just 'shaping' what is in some sense 'aready

And no B2 would not be complete either... there is no reason why it
couldn't go on improving itself indefinitely.


This idea of course is the exact opposite of the way most researchers
are thinking about this.  They are trying to start with hugely complex
low-level mathematics, whereas I'm starting at the *highest* level of
asbtraction, and trying to identify those few basic vague, fuzzy
'Prims'  which I maintain are all that are needed to in some strange
way, encompass all knowledge.

So far I've identified 27 basic 'Prims'.  I suspect these are all of
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