On 10/24/2013 8:41 PM, chris peck wrote:
/>> Unfortunately we don't even have that example, because we don't know how we
think./
We know that a certain set of mistakes are ubiquitous when learning grammer.
(overgeneralising for example). Cats. dogs. hamsters. ... Sheeps. deers. etc.
And we know the computer system didn't make these mistakes.
Whether a computer made those mistakes would obviously depend on it's software and one
could obviously write software that would over generalize and in fact neural network
classifiers often over generalize.
But you're back to judging internal processes by external behavior.
Brent
Thats all we need to know to say that the two systems are not the same. All we need to
know to say the computer was not doing what children do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:35:05 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris peck wrote:
At this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is learning or
thinking
about grammar. It is a matter of philosophical taste. It certainly isn't
learning or
thinking as we learnt or thought when learning grammar. The way we cognate
is the
only example we have of cognition that we know is genuine.
Unfortunately we don't even have that example, because we don't know how we
think.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
