Hi Folks,
I can't throw myself any further into this ... I have to get back in the
fray here. However - a couple of quick-ones for Brent and Bruno:
COL
> the instant the
> abstraction happens, from that moment on you know NOTHING about the
> current state of the distal environment...all you hav
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
On 02 Sep 2008, at 03:56, Colin Hales wrote:
> Computationalism is FALSE in the sense of 'not useful', not false in
> the sense of 'wrong'.
Remember that if we are machine then we cannot *know* (correctly
justify) which machine we are. We can do bets.
But comp entails many indirect propos
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 wh
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
Hi,
I'm responding to Jesse at the moment... but to round out...every now
and then I give myself the luxury of kcicking the received view in the
butt ... to try and get it to wake up. I'll go away shortly :-)
Deep blue doesn't know it's a chess program, doesn't know what chess is,
doesn
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
> compu
Colin Hales wrote:
>
> 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 abou
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')
Colin Hales wrote:
> Computationalism is FALSE in the sense that it cannot be used to construct a
> scientist.
> A scientist deals with the UNKNOWN.
> If you could compute a scientist you would already know everything! Science
> would be impossible.
> So you can 'compute/simulate' a scientist,
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
us
11 matches
Mail list logo
