Re: Guessing?

On Jul 11, 4:36 pm, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:16 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 8:30 am, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Wittgenstein goes on
> > > from this basis to conclude that meaning and knowledge cannot be
> > > encoded in any formal representation
>
> > I just want to pop in here and say that the above idea is bullshit.
>
> Well feel free to either pop out again, or elucidate. It is unclear
> whether you are saying that Wittgenstein didn't suggest that some
> meaning has no logical form (which he did as a consequence of his
> discourse with Sraffa), or that many have misinterpreted him. Perhaps
> you intended this ambiguity. Perhaps its just a sloppy post - hard to
> tell as is.

I beg your pardon, sir!

I am calling bullshit on the above position, attributed to Wittgenstein.
I am calling bullshit on the idea that "meaning and knowledge cannot be encoded in any formal representation."

> Either way, knowledge is generally accepted in AI research as
> unencodable in a descriptive model. I would love to claim to have
> formulated such conclusions myself, but I am merely reiterating
> Clancey, Brookes and Cantwell-Smith famous papers, the well documented
> demise of expert systems, the $35million wasted on projects like CYC,
> etc, etc, etc.

Lately I have developed an allergic reaction to various ideas asserting
that brains are somehow magical and mystical, and thought is something that we not only can't currently explain computationally, but never will be able to explain computationally. It's just bullshit.

Earlier you mentioned "What Computers Still Can't Do."

Reading for example this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Computers_Can%27t_Do

I see no argument that doesn't amuse me with its lameness.

I would type more, but I have a pressing engagement. Perhaps later?

Marshall Received on Sat Jul 12 2008 - 03:27:26 CEST