3 ms·
How dictionaries circularly define words using other words, and how humans might learn by progressively expanding analogies starting with simple 'axioms' of bod
by horseass 17y ago
How dictionaries circularly define words using other words, and how humans might learn by progressively expanding analogies starting with simple 'axioms' of body sensations like up vs. down (more on other pages):
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/politics/cogsci5.htm http://members.cox.net/deleyd/politics/cogsci5.htm
- yafujifide 17y agoWow, these three comments have just mirrored my own recent thoughts to the greatest extent I can remember. I present to you the Infinite Curiosity Loop: http://funnylogic.com/times/txt/2009-11-infinite-curiosity-loop-and-curiosity-halters/ http://funnylogic.com/times/txt/2009-11-infinite-curiosity-l... And for what it's worth, the definition of intelligence has been on my mind a lot.
- horseass 17y agoThe letter 'g' is a completely arbitrary shape. Similarly an entire word 'everything' is just an arbitrary shape (though subdivided into constituent organized blobs of arbitrary shape). Letters and words seem to be symbols/code that stand for something else, and that something else might be raw sensory neuron patterns or something (imaging an apple with your eyes shut might be a trick to trigger that raw data without needing external stimulus to do so, such as seeing a real apple). Even the "sesame street" concept of up/down might require some sort of raw inner ear balance and sight sense to experience.
- Confusion 17y agoIf you'd like to explore this subject in a structured way, then there's a large library of philosophical writings on the subject :). I think Hilary Putnam's essay on "Brains in a vat"[1] may be a nice starting point, from which can explore both earlier and later work. [1] http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/putnam05.htm http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/putnam05.htm