[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 18:16:18 CET 2009
ah ... the happiness and security of a monological universe ...
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:14 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
<reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Paul D. Fernhout
> <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> > Another way to understand this might be to look at some of Marvin
> > and other's work on multiple representations and artificial intelligence.
> > was at a talk Minsky gave around 1999 where he outlined the idea that the
> > human brain simultaneously kept running several different models of the
> > world (semantic, 3D, 2D, and so on, don't remember for sure which ones he
> > discussed) and kept choosing solutions from one of the model as they were
> > most appropriate. So, there he was talking about building AIs with
> > ways of knowing, all going on simultaneously. :-) Mathematical and
> > enough for you? :-)
> You are misunderstanding what you are reading here. The internal
> abstract representation of all those models is *identical*, it is the
> information that varies from model to model. Semantics and 3D are the
> same structure, you are just organizing the structures around
> different properties of the raw information. It is a local
> optimization with well-understood properties. This is a side-effect of
> ideal intelligence not being possible in this universe (it is
> > Only after the fact. Biofilms are theoretically not possible either,
> Nonsense. You are conflating theoretical possibility with empirical
> evidence. This is a basic logic error.
> > Could the same be true for how you say other things, whether disordered
> > amorphous p2p volunteerism, or distributed search, are not theoretically
> > possible, or are certain to fail? :-)
> You are making some pretty severe category errors here, conflating
> completely unrelated constructs as though they are subject to
> equivalent analysis.
> Some things are provably impossible in a strong mathematical sense.
> Nothing proven mathematically has *ever* been invalidated by a fact of
> reality. There are some things for which we have only proven partial
> properties i.e. we do not know what is potentially possible but we can
> prove that some things are impossible regardless of that fact. And
> then there is science where nothing is ever proven at all.
> There is no aspect of reality that does not obey strict mathematics as
> we understand it. What is possible in the unknown areas of science is
> bounded by what is allowed in mathematics. That leaves many
> unexplored possibilities, but it also means that we can say with a
> high degree of certainty that some ideas are strictly disallowed even
> without bothering to collect empirical evidence.
> Every time someone has pretended that mathematics doesn't apply to
> some aspect of reality, disaster has ensued.
> J. Andrew Rogers
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch