Re: Guessing?

On Jul 12, 2:27 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:36 pm, JOG <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:16 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:30 am, JOG <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 bull***.

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!

No worries dude.


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

Then we disagree whole-heartedly. Great guns.


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,

This is a straw man. You are attributing mysticism where it is not
claimed. It is merely as statement that meaning comes from how our
senses react to the world, as opposed to your view of the brain as a
turing machine churning up statements of first order logic.

and thought is
something that we not only can't currently explain computationally,
but never will be able to explain computationally. It's just bull***.

Yeah, that's right. Human thought is not like a big calculator. Go
figure.


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?

Absolutely. I'm interested in how you have formulated your wishful
1960's style opinions - misguided as they are ;)


Marshall

.