Hello again Jesse,
I am going to assume that by trashing computationalism that Marc Geddes
has enough ammo to vitiate Eleizer's various predilections so... to
that end...
Your various comments (see below) have a common thread of the form I
see no reason why you can't ..X.. So let's focus
Colin Hales wrote:
Hello again Jesse,
I am going to assume that by trashing computationalism that Marc Geddes
has enough ammo to vitiate Eleizer's various predilections so... to
that end...
Your various comments (see below) have a common thread of the form I
see no reason why you
On Sep 2, 6:27 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello again Jesse,
I am going to assume that by trashing computationalism that Marc Geddes
has enough ammo to vitiate Eleizer's various predilections so... to
that end...
To make it clear, I'm not trashing computaionalism. I
Hi Marc,
*/Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
computation... meant in the sense that cognition is computation, where
computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe
Hi!
Assumptions assumption assumptionstake a look: You said:
Why would you say that? Computer simulations can certainly produce
results you didn't already know about, just look at genetic algorithms.
OK. here's the rub... /You didn't already know about.../.
Just exactly 'who' (the 'you') is
On Sep 2, 1:56 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc,
*/Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
computation... meant in the sense that cognition is computation, where
computation is
6 matches
Mail list logo
