4 ms·
That doesn't resolve the question. It just describes how to move on while ignoring the obvious elephant in the room
by passwordoops 3y ago
That doesn't resolve the question. It just describes how to move on while ignoring the obvious elephant in the room
- SiempreViernes 3y agoAnd how is that different from resolving the question?
- passwordoops 3y agoThe problem still exists
- logicchains 3y agoThe problem doesn't exist in a meaningful sense if one can't define it clearly. Might as well say the wellabigomboopita still exists.
- SiempreViernes 3y agoI thought problem was you couldn't get anywhere because of the question, but you're saying the problem is the question didn't get an answer that satisfies your taste?
- passwordoops 3y agoThe problem, as stated by the parent, is that it is "still pretty unclear at a fundamental level what it means to understand, learn, or conceptualize things." Which Wittgenstein didn't resolve, he describes how to kick the can down the road. Which is fine, every science needs to make assumptions to move on, but in no way is that a "resolution" to the problem of "what it means to understand, learn, or conceptualize things."
- jojobas 3y agoA strict definition is almost never required outside maths. We got so far being unable to define "woman" it turns out. The most naive meaning of understanding, such as "demonstrating ability to apply a concept to a wide range of situations" is good enough for many cases, Goedel be damned.
- passwordoops 3y agoAgree. But computers are applied math. So it stands to reason that neutral networks require a strict definition
- jojobas 3y agoYour brain is a neural network. All education is therefore applied maths as well, right?
- tadala 3y ago[dead]