From: Philip Goetz (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 17 2006 - 21:35:44 MDT
On 8/16/06, Ben Goertzel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Furthermore, I wouldn't want to emphasize the "hybrid" aspect of
> Novamente too strongly. The hybrid nature is just a matter of
> convenience. The design was arrived at by starting top-down and
> figuring out what the requirements are for components of an AGI
> system. Then, when some existing computer science technology seemed
> like it could be modified and extended to fulfill the requirements for
> one of the components, it was used in this capacity.
I think there are strong connections between the hybrid aspect of
Novamente, and the failings with logical positivism pointed out by
Wittgenstein, and later by post-modern philosophers such as Derrida.
The reason you're free to build a hybrid architecture is that you
aren't clinging to the belief in semantic purity that was a common
feature of logical positivism, 1980s unified architectures for
cognition, and modernism in general. Once you accept that semantics
and syntax can't be analyzed separately - which is a key part of what
the post-modernists said, muddied up with Marxist terminology in an
attempt to lend radical chic to what is basically a linguistic problem
- you're free to put together hybrid systems, without worrying that
you can no longer know exactly what something represents, or what your
architecture can and can't compute.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT