We explain a homunculus not by positing a second homunculus within it that performs the same activity, but by positing a team of smaller, less talented, and more specialized homunculi - and specifying the ways they cooperate to produce their joint output. -William Lycan
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @dlevenstein
I agree. How does coordination and cooperation lead to higher intelligence?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IntuitMachine @dlevenstein
Intelligence? What is that? I need an answer to that before I can go in to some “higher” version.https://discourse.numenta.org/t/brain-building-q1-define-intelligence/6829?u=bitking …
2 replies 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bitking69 @dlevenstein
All wrong. Why? Information is not defined. Define that first before you can move forward.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @bitking69 @dlevenstein1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @IntuitMachine @dlevenstein
I am pretty sure that when a mouse learns the location of the cheese stores he does not worry about the physics details as the information is encoded onto his little mouse cortex.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bitking69 @dlevenstein
Before you can understand the meaning of 'information is encoded onto his little mouse cortex' you have to understand the nature of that 'information' that you describe as being encoded.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This makes no sense. Information is information. When you talk about "meaning" or "nature" of information, you're not talking about anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You'll need to expand your mind to realize that it does make perfect sense. If you only think of it from its encoding in bits, then you are looking at it only from the perspective of communication.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What makes your statements hard to parse is that you seem to assume that you are seeing something that the others are not seeing, and thus you point nowhere visible. Try instead to point at the things they are seeing and explain the relations that you think they miss.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @rhyolight and
I tried to do that. I pointed out that you can't define intelligence without first having a better ontology for information. Here's more detail:https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/a-new-theory-of-information-emergence-28de58a522c …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IntuitMachine @rhyolight and
I think I understood you, and I agree on defining intelligence based on a sound understanding of information, but we have had that for a long time.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 24 more replies
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.