Jump to content
Science Forums

Kriminal99

Members
  • Content Count

    813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Kriminal99 last won the day on October 10 2010

Kriminal99 had the most liked content!

About Kriminal99

  • Rank
    Explaining
  • Birthday 05/28/1982
  1. Occam's Razor, Ideas extracted from studying Coherentism in epistemology etc. : One should fail to differentiate between different belief sets or labeling schemes which use the same set of observations. It isn't possible to limit what you are working with to just the observations themselves because you need a way to reference those observations as well, but if you fail to differentiate between them you will be assured to use the least amount of effort in processing the observations. You will also be able to jump back and forth between labeling schemes and belief sets that contain the sam
  2. The way to generalize patterns from the data is all the human brain is. The different sections of the brain are just the end result after being given certain inputs over multiple generations. It didn't take any time to find either. It's modeled after a simplistic proxy for survival that is very easy to mechanically realize. What I am essentially saying is that the two approaches are really the same thing. The hierarchies Chomsky is trying to create can actually be generated using statistical methods.
  3. Understanding is not irrelevant in Norvig's approach because of the problem of overfit to data. Without an accurate means of generalizing from patterns in the data, you are limited in how you can apply that knowledge to data outside of the range. You could build an enormous database of knowledge and just look everything up, but an AI with a human like ability to generalize wouldn't need anywhere near the same amount of storage space or processing power. Such a program would use methods of generalization specifically because they were successful in associating the most amount of informatio
  4. For one we went wrong by not stamping people's IQ's on their forehead. Second we need to identify what it is that causes certain people to amass much more knowledge for the same level of IQ, and put those people in charge of everything. I know the solution to every problem in law, economics, government and just about anything else you put in front of me. I can mathematically prove that these solutions are correct, and convince anyone who doesn't use debate fallacies or other forms of passive aggressiveness that my solutions are correct. But when I try to explain them to anyone or do anyth
  5. Well because the person who created it would have to know EXACTLY what they were doing. Though I used to scoff at the idea, it is possible to run an assembly line of known algorithmic techniques to create the same effect as human intelligence. But no one is going to do that just by pure random chance. The thing that is lacking is the correct understanding of what intelligence really is. What I have done is to create a mathematical problem statement outlining human intelligence, and then create a solution that mimics the statistical reasoning of the human brain. A more direct emulation wou
  6. I already have it. I think the danger is more of the form that someone will intentionally create one that does bad... With the understanding brought by the ability to program it, psychological manipulation would be fairly easy and mental states could be monitored. They would have no hunger or mating instincts, which would reduce the chance of a lot of psychotic human behavior naturally developing. The main problem would be based on them having outputs and learning to manipulate them to get attention. This can be avoided (if desirable) by preventing them from having any outputs, or limiting
  7. An irrelevant factual statement, that diverted attention from the argument... The person need not say "therefore you are incorrect". The fact that he said it in response implies that it is relevant to the argument, when it is not.
  8. I look at fallacies from the point of view of implied rules of debate. I believe that for something like a logical fallacy to have meaning, it must have a driving context. So from that point of view, the problem is that person B opened their mouth despite their ignorance. Well not really that they opened their mouth, but that they assert something intended to be perceived as participation in the debate. This part of it is along the lines of Red Herring fallacy. Of course, the original Appeal to Authority fallacy was also a type of Red Herring, and many fallacies overlap... The scalin
  9. Give it up. There is no purpose of life that can be divined from intelligence, which means that the only purpose of life is live itself. The immense revulsion that people feel for the idea that you are speaking about is inseparable from those feelings and emotions that give life meaning and will never go away. And consent is meaningless for a kid.
  10. No, that is not correct. It is entirely possible to experience a feeling of loss that no one understands the things that you do while still being 100% certain of your ideas. Human beings are social by nature, but through special conditioning people like me become far more aware of our surroundings as part of a survival instinct prior to worrying about fitting in or getting attention from other people. We still then care somewhat about social interaction. For most people, it is ok if one person does not understand their idea, as long as someone else does. I have never met anyone that un
  11. What if someone filed a slander suit alleging that a university professor assigned a defamatory grade and that he was not qualified to assign any grade due to lack of expertise in the area of intelligence and education itself? The US supreme court fails to differentiate between opinion and fact, and a person making a poorly reasoned assessment of someone else cannot hide behind the claim it is opinion. You could argue that the professor was too stupid to accurately judge your ideas and/or lacked the awareness of the significance of intelligence that might have allowed him to be more careful
  12. I'll agree that scientists make science science, if only because words and phrases like science, scientific method, etc have become more buzzwords than philosophically sound paradigms. Without a concrete formulation of doubt like one that doctor dick has tried to outline scientists at worst can not be guaranteed to be more than just slightly less idiotic idiots. Though they relate their superior understanding to some level of self-skepticism and will to validate beliefs "empirically" over the average person, they can only describe this attribute by pointing to someone that seemingly does
  13. That is a defense to global skepticism, but not to less than global skepticism. What if most people are real, but one of them is a robot? Thus, we cannot simply define people that we perceive to be external conscious entities, but rather must limit our claims to the fact that we perceive them. This claim is true both in the case of the robot and the real person. Well, you used the example of color blindness at one point in your post. Since color blindness isn't a one to one mapping to normal vision, situations exist where people could identify a deficiency that one person had even though
  14. I understand your argument, but disagree in the manner you addressed in the last paragraph. That is, how do you know the other person observing the same thing as you is real when that other person is also just something you are perceiving? Ah, the inverted spectrum argument. The answer is that when you find out that the two people are experiencing different reactions to the colors, then it matters. Yes, this IS the only reality we have to work with. Within this reality exists the possibility of perceptions that can fail without all of reality failing. You walk into a ghost town, only
×
×
  • Create New...