Re:The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
by upquark on Thursday October 24, 2013 @07:52PM
(#6608899)
No I'm not arguing for a statistics-only scheme, just that you can't ignore it / abstract it away, and that its role is crucial in cognition. I think we agree with each other.
Re:The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
by hharrison on Thursday October 24, 2013 @09:38PM
(#6609258)
Well, you said "you cannot not reduce it [AI] to statistics". And I'm saying, not only is it possible to not reduce AI to statistics, it is desirable. It's the reduce part that I have a hard time with.
Re:The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
by upquark on Thursday October 24, 2013 @11:08PM
(#6609539)
Possibly poor wording, my intent was to say that you cannot dismiss or underestimate statistics in modeling the mind because the damn thing is a sophisticated statistical information retrieval system (with some higher-level structure on top for doing things like debating mind modeling on HN).
What you're proposing is an overly reductionist ontology, IMO, and yet I agree that statistics are important, if not critical. (Hint: not the boring linear kind of statistics that you so often see in Big Data)