3 ms·

Sorry, but I really don't understand your claim. You say > The only alternative is to rely on patter recognition, but that is not a general solution. but then

Sorry, but I really don't understand your claim. You say > The only alternative is to rely on patter recognition, but that is not a general solution. but then you say > we can solve, _non-algorithmically_ and with finite resources, problems that _algorithmically_ cannot be solved with infinite resources How do you propose that we humans solve these problem in a way that both isn't algorithmic and isn't reducible to pattern recognition? Because I'm pretty sure it's always one of these.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
The first sentence you quote refers to machines, not humans, and machines must be somehow programmed with, or learn patterns from data, that's why I say that it's not a general solution - because it's restricted by the data available. I don't know how humans do it. Whatever we do it's something that is not covered by our current understanding of computation and maybe even mathematics. I suspect that in order to answer your question we need a new science of computation and mathematics. I think that may sound a bit kooky but it's a bit late and I'm a bit tired to explain so I guess you'll have to suspect I'm just a crank until I next find the energy to explain myself.