8 ms·
The 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."
by passwordoops 3y ago
The 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?