> From: Mike Tintner [mailto:tint...@blueyonder.co.uk]
>
> Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human-
> level
> GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a "thing." It's a
> cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any
> thing
> as a
John:Just by defining "bricks" you are already applying rationalist
hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract "bricks" have a
limiting
rationalist inducing structure... Maybe "bricks" are too rationalist, I
want
to use "gloops" to build creative things that are impossible to build with
Top posted here:
Using your bricks to construct something, you have to construct it within
constraints. Constraints is the key word. Whatever "bricks" you are using
they have their own limiting properties. You CANNOT build anything anyway
you please. Just by defining "bricks" you are already apply
>
> In my opinion you are being too generous and your generosity is being
> taken advantage of.
That is quite possible; it's certainly happened before...
>
> As well as trying to be nice to Mike, you have to bear list quality in
> mind and decide whether his ramblings are of some benefit to all
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
> IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a "troll" because I
> feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI,
> rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation
>
> However, I find
yeah ... that's not a matter of the English language but rather a matter of
the American Way ;-p
Through working with many non-Americans I have noted that what Americans
often intend as a "playful obnoxiousness" is interpreted by non-Americans
more seriously...
I think we had some mutual colleagu
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
> IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a "troll" because I
> feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI,
> rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation
Well, I guess my E
IMHO, Mike Tintner is not often rude, and is not exactly a "troll" because I
feel he is genuinely trying to understand the deeper issues related to AGI,
rather than mainly trying to stir up trouble or cause irritation
However, I find conversing with him generally frustrating because he
combines
A
BillK,
Thanks for the reminder. I didn't reply to him, but still got involved. :-(
I certainty don't want to encourage bad behaviors in this mailing
list. Here "bad behaviors" are not in the conclusions or arguments,
but in the way they are presented, as well as in the
politeness/rudeness toward
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
>
> (On the contrary, Pei, you can't get more narrow-minded than rational
> thinking. That's its strength and its weakness).
>
Pei
In case you haven't noticed, you won't gain anything from trying to
engage with the troll.
Mike does not discus
P.S. To put the distinction in a really simple easy to visualise (though
*not* formal) form:
rationality and creativity can be seen as reasoning about how to put bricks
together - (from the metaphorical bricks of an argument to the literal
bricks of a building)
with rationality, you reaso
Agree.
As far as a system is not pure deductive, it can be creative. What
usually called "creative thinking" often can be analyzed into a
combination induction, abduction, analogy, etc, as well as deduction.
When these inference are properly justified, they are rational.
To treat "creative" and "
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Ben,
>
> I radically disagree. Human intelligence involves both creativity and
> rationality, certainly. But rationality - and the rational systems of
> logic/maths and formal languages, [on which current AGI depends] - are
> fundamentall
13 matches
Mail list logo
