Marvin Minsky loved surprising ideas from others and generated a bunch of his own. He must have been the ultimate friend to the misfits who loved the same. Enemies, I suppose, were those who were ideologically stuck in place or in boring agreement.
-
-
Replying to @DKedmey @davidarredondo
Minsky ruthlessly shut down numerous projects that he did not agree with. The most famous you heard of was neural networks (for a decade), the most famous you did not hear of was cybernetics, and there were unknown ones, like an amazing synthesizer theory of the mind.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Minsky loved new ideas and intellectual stimulation. However, his folks either kept their distance from SoM and even AI (like Sussman or Hillis), or they were expected to not be independent thinkers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Minsky and Chomsky were similar in this regard, and really did not get along.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
Did Minsky and Chomsky ever have a public debate for posterity's sake? Or we’re left to piece it together ourselves?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DKedmey @davidarredondo
I had the impression that neither was listening to the arguments of the others, and shouted against a strawman version of them. Chomsky is still around and became a mysterianist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
“mysterianist” is a new term for me. Based on this explanation: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27017 … ...it sounds like one more form of pessimism. A sophisticated, appealing, yet ultimately irrational reason to give up.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Does ANYONE you know think seriously that we can know " the thing in itself"? Replace * thing* with whatever you like.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo @DKedmey
What if it turns out that there are very few ways to define fractals, and they turn out to be equivalent, and there are very few fractals that could give rise to your observables, and one of them has a neat generator function, and it's the superposition of all finite automata?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Where would * errors*, selection and mutation come in?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Evolution is a function that allows you to compress local complexity in our universe fractal.
-
-
What's universe fractal and how does QM fit in?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo @DKedmey
QM is a function that allows you to compress another layer of the universe fractal, but perhaps poorly.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.