= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Debunking Fallacies in the Theory of AI Motivation - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (343)
I think I recognize what you mean from something I wrote in 2007 about the vaguesness of concepts:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120121185331/http://grault.net/adjunct/index.cgi?VaguesDependingOnVagues (note the wayback-link; the original site no longer exists).
But your reply still doesn't answer my question: You claim that the concepts are stable and that a "o gotcha" result can be proven - and I assume mathematically proven. And for that I'd really like to see a reference to the relevant math as I want to integrate that into my own understanding of concepts that are 'composed' from vague features.
Yes to your link. And Hofstadter, of course, riffs on this idea continuously.
(It is fun, btw, to try to invent games in which 'concepts' are defined by more and more exotic requirements, then watch the mind as it gets used to the requirements and starts supplying you with instances).
When I was saying mathematically proven, this is something I am still working on, but cannot get there yet (otherwise I would have published it already) because it involves being more specific about the relevant classes of concept mechanism. When the proof comes it will be a statistical-mechanics-style proof, however.
OK. Now I understand what kind of proof you mean. Thank you for you answer and your passion. Also thanks for the feedback on my old post.