I came up with this metaphor which hopefully indicates the
relationship between the three main types of inference (Symbolic,
Bayesian and Analogical).
---
Picture a mind as a space, and 'the laws of mind' are analogous to the
principles of cognitive science.
Now in this 'mind space' picture
Happy NewYear, Colin,
you just came up shy from the notion that all this is a part of the
anthropocentric maze.
Physicists' hegemnony over (scientific?) thinking is embedded into the
math-maze of numbers and this, too, may be a human invention (according to
D. Bohm). So all the 'stories' and
On 30 Dec 2009, at 03:29, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Is there a UD that is implemented in Fortran?
I don't know. If you know Fortran, it should be a relatively easy task
to implement one.
Note that you have still the choice between a fortran program
dovetailing on all computations by
On 30 Dec 2009, at 05:59, Colin Hales wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
Described in this article:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist
Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the
bizarre
Hi Mindey,
On 29 Dec 2009, at 15:07, Mindey wrote:
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define universe? Sorry if that question was answered
somewhere, but after a quick search I didn't find it.
What do you mean by universe? Do you mean, like many, the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
The theory
explains what exists, and how the rest emerges from it.
But then doesn't the rest exist, too? I just see a problem with
claiming
to explain what exists, when it is really not clear what existance
could
You may be right. But it is still an open problem to just define
probability (except the probability one) in the mechanist settting.
Rich metaphor, but a promise for a lot of work, to make this precise
enough in the mechanist frame. It would mean that not only we have a
measure (and a linear
Bruno,* *
I still wait for the reasoning of the 'primitive' in your:
*...if this physical universe can be captured by a program (a number) or
even by a mathematical structure. It is not a primitive structure. It has a
reason linked to a
statistics on computations.-...*
What primitive(?)
Dear Marc,
you emerged from the conventional figment of a 'physical world' view and
elevated into the concept of mind (what I don't know where, what and how
to define...) - anyway, to think in mental terms instead of the conventional
physical figments.
Then you use the complacent terms of the
John,
On 29 Dec 2009, at 20:57, John Mikes wrote:
excuse me if I suggest some circularity in you reply.
You are welcome.
A learning machine is by def. learning SOMETHING
Yes. Usually a total computable function, or a mechanically generable
set, or things represented by those things.
10 matches
Mail list logo
