Re: Phenomenological Ontology
From: |-|erc (gotcha_at_beauty.com)
Date: 06/01/04
- Next message: Jim Hunter: "Re: Goedel and the direction of evolution"
- Previous message: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- In reply to: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Next in thread: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Reply: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Reply:(deleted message) sam ende: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 01:08:44 GMT
"David Kogan" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in
> >
>
> Have you ever heard of "The Language of Thought Hypothesis" (LOTH)? It
> covers propositional thought, which is what you are describing.
>
> Take a look at:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/
>
> http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/fcummins/home/CogModels/cogpsych.html
> The Language of Thought Hypothesis (LOTH) postulates that thought and
> thinking take place in a mental language. This language consists of a system
> of representations that is physically realized in the brain of thinkers and
> has a combinatorial syntax (and semantics) such that operations on
> representations are causally sensitive only to the syntactic properties of
> representations. According to LOTH, thought is, roughly, the tokening of a
> representation that has a syntactic (constituent) structure with an
> appropriate semantics. Thinking thus consists in syntactic operations
> defined over such representations. Most of the arguments for LOTH derive
> their strength from their ability to explain certain empirical phenomena
> like productivity and systematicity of thought and thinking.
>
news to me, sounds fine a computational approach, but there's terrabytes of theory
on the mind, what applications are being developed? what algorithm coordinates
all of these ideas? people fall short very fast on a simulation of their hypothesies.
"There are numerous thought processes happening in parallel", a common conclusion,
but who uses parallel computers for real? What theory do they operate on? If
the mind is a computer why are the mathematical models of computers inadequate?
Is there a "new" theory or is AI application of existing computer science, in a way
we don't know how to bring together? What's the smallest computer program that
can trigger a sentience into self programming? 10KB? 10,000,000,000 KB?
Herc
- Next message: Jim Hunter: "Re: Goedel and the direction of evolution"
- Previous message: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- In reply to: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Next in thread: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Reply: David Kogan: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Reply:(deleted message) sam ende: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|