On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:36 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

Be careful with this one. I think it's not possible to say this; all
you *can* say is that his parents did not use their intelligence in
the same way he did, not that one is "smarter" then the other as if to
suggest he materialised some additional "smarts" out of thin air.
Obviously when combined you take components from the entire tree you
have available to you; thus allowing you to be different, but it still
does mean that you come from that tree and are hence limited by it.

> 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
> there'.
> 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
> them.

noon silky

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