Understanding
in [Logic]
|
Prev: I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
Next: NAY, I SAY AGAIN, STUBBORN STAINS? USE BRILLO. ONLY A BRILLO UNDERPANTS CAN OUTSHINE THE SUN.
From: yasu on 18 Mar 2010 11:04 On Mar 18, 11:18 pm, Marc Alcobé García <malc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 mar, 12:45, yasu <yasuakik...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 3:39 pm, William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, yasu wrote: > > > > MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically > > > > followed. > > > > False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. > > > > > The study and research of MATHEMATICS is not practiced by any machine > > > > today. > > > > They're trying. > > > > > Understanding requires assumptions about implicitly stated conditions. > > > > Understanding is not a topic of mathematics. It's a topic of philosophy. > > > > > Such assumptions are not practiced by any machine today. > > > > Computer software is full of known science and math. > > > Hello, thank you for replying. > > > I really appreciate your comments. Regarding the "belief system" > > concept, I have been debating in my mind as well. What I was thinking > > was something like this - is it possible a non-human to understand > > mathematics? I though the answer, at this moment anyway, was false. > > I thought that if you save PDF books of mathematics textbooks etc on a > > hard drive, the machine cannot "understand" the content of it. In > > order to "understand" anything, I think it requires the "wilinness" of > > whoever studying the subject to understand it.. That's what I called > > very vaguely... (sorry for my lack of vocabulary), "religion". Does > > it make sense?- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - > > Maybe Smullyan's "Forever Undecided" would make a good read that would > dispel some of your worries. Thank you,.. I do have some books on the incompleteness theorem. But what bothers me is still the same..You cannot let a machine to learn all about the incompleteness theorem, etc by iself. Neithe can you do the same for a 6 month old baby. It just appears to me that "understanding" is a very human cocept and we do not know exactly what understanding means, (maybe), because if we did, we would have a machine that can "understand thngs" by now.. My question then is like ths... what can be "universally" accepted when the best examples I see are those that can be accepted by certain educated adult populations...
From: Frederick Williams on 18 Mar 2010 11:28 yasu wrote: > > On Mar 18, 3:39 pm, William Elliot <ma...(a)rdrop.remove.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, yasu wrote: > > > MATHEMATICS is a belief system which can be almost mechanically > > > followed. > > > > False. Mathematics is not religion. Religion is belief system. > > > > > The study and research of MATHEMATICS is not practiced by any machine > > > today. > > > > They're trying. > > > > > Understanding requires assumptions about implicitly stated conditions. > > > > Understanding is not a topic of mathematics. It's a topic of philosophy. > > > > > Such assumptions are not practiced by any machine today. > > > > Computer software is full of known science and math. > > Hello, thank you for replying. > > I really appreciate your comments. Regarding the "belief system" > concept, I have been debating in my mind as well. What I was thinking > was something like this - is it possible a non-human to understand > mathematics? Those who are searching for extra terrestrial intelligence hope so. They are wont to say that the only things humans and "aliens" may be assumed to have in common are physics and mathematics. > I though the answer, at this moment anyway, was false. > I thought that if you save PDF books of mathematics textbooks etc on a > hard drive, the machine cannot "understand" the content of it. In > order to "understand" anything, I think it requires the "wilinness" of > whoever studying the subject to understand it.. That's what I called > very vaguely... (sorry for my lack of vocabulary), "religion". Does > it make sense? -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Marc Alcobé García on 18 Mar 2010 11:38 Machines might some day learn things by ostension, just as we humans do. But before maybe we should discover how our brain is capable of analogy, idealization, abstraction, generalization, particularization, representation, etc...
From: Marc Alcobé García on 18 Mar 2010 12:02 On 18 mar, 16:38, Marc Alcobé García <malc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Machines might some day learn things by ostension, just as we humans > do. But before maybe we should discover how our brain is capable of > analogy, idealization, abstraction, generalization, particularization, > representation, etc... Sorry, I am not sure 'ostension' is an english word, its meaning would be synonym of 'by example', i. e. by means of showing what is meant to be learnt. For example, if you want to teach a baby the meaning of 'green' you just have to show him/her green objects and tell him/her they are green.
From: Frederick Williams on 18 Mar 2010 14:27
Marc Alcob� Garc�a wrote: > > On 18 mar, 16:38, Marc Alcob� Garc�a <malc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Machines might some day learn things by ostension, just as we humans > > do. But before maybe we should discover how our brain is capable of > > analogy, idealization, abstraction, generalization, particularization, > > representation, etc... > > Sorry, I am not sure 'ostension' is an english word, its meaning would > be synonym of 'by example', i. e. by means of showing what is meant to > be learnt. It is English but obsolete except in ecclesiastical uses. > For example, if you want to teach a baby the meaning of > 'green' you just have to show him/her green objects and tell him/her > they are green. -- I can't go on, I'll go on. |