Or, in other words, you can't even start to draw a clear distinction in a small
number of words. That would argue that maybe those equalities aren't so silly
after all.
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:38 PM
Hmmm. I think that some of our miscommunication might have been due to the
fact that you seem to be talking about two things while I think that I'm
talking about third . . . .
I believe that *meaning* is constructed.
I believe that truth is absolute (within a given context) and is a proper
No, it's really just that I've been spending too much time on this mailing
list. I've got an AGI to build, as well as too many other responsibilities
;-p
You've now changed your statement to science = optimal formalized group
learning ... I'm not sure if this is intended as descriptive or
Mark,
I'm a classicalist in the sense that I think classical mathematics
needs to be accounted for in a theory of meaning. (Ben seems to think
that a constructivist can do this by equating classical mathematics
with axiom-systems-of-classical-mathematics, but I am unconvinced.) I
am also a
You've now changed your statement to science = optimal formalized group
learning ... I'm not sure if this is intended as descriptive or prescriptive
Our previous e-mails about the sociology of science should have made it quite
clear that its not descriptive ;-) Of course it was intended to
Hi,
It's interesting (and useful) that you didn't use the word meaning until
your last paragraph.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that meaning is constructed,
yet truth is absolute. Could you clarify?
Hmmm. What if I say that meaning is your domain model and that truth is
I think you're converging on better and better wording ... however, I think
somehow you do need to account for the differences between
-- science
on the one hand and
-- math
-- art
etc. on the other hand, which also involve group learning and codification
and communication of results, etc. ...
Mark,
An example of people who would argue with the meaningfulness of
classical mathematics: there are some people who contest the concept
of real numbers. The cite things like that the vast majority of real
numbers cannot even be named or referenced in any way as individuals,
since the infinity
Cool. Thank you for the assist.
I think that math has the distinction that it is a closed formal system and
that therefore people segregate it from the open mess that science has to deal
with (though arguably the scientific method applies).
Art seems to be that which deals with an even bigger
I, being of the classical persuasion, believe that arithmetic is either
consistent or inconsistent. You, to the extent that you are a
constructivist, should say that the matter is undecidable and therefore
undefined.
I believe that arithmetic is a formal and complete system. I'm not a
Mark,
The number of possible descriptions is countable, while the number of
possible real numbers is uncountable. So, there are infinitely many
more real numbers that are individually indescribable, then
describable; so much so that if we were able to randomly pick a real
number between 1 and 0,
This link of scientific news of today shows that scientists and
mathematicians obviously have common abilities:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081027121515.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081027121515.htm
Von: Dr. Matthias Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark,
Sorry, I accidentally called you Mike in the previous email!
Anyway, you said:
Also, you seem to be ascribing arbitrariness to constructivism which
is emphatically not the case.
I didn't mean to ascribe arbitrariness to constructivism-- what I
meant was that constructivists would (as I
13 matches
Mail list logo
