Ben, "Strength"? If you mean weight or confidence, this is not so. As Pei corrected, it is the *frequency* that depends on only one of the two. The strength depends on both.
And, that is one feature of NARS that I don't find strange. It can be explained OK by the formula I previously proposed and now abandoned. To re-use the same metaphor I referred to before, it is as if we are trying to estimate the weight of heads and tails for a quarter when we have only partial knowledge of a series of coin flips, and partial knowledge telling us whether or not that series of flips is actually the quarter we are interested in. The 2 types of knowledge there are exactly like the 2 premises: we only want the frequency to depend on the first type of evidence, but the confidence of that frequency also depends on the 2nd type of evidence. To respond more generally to the comments... The criticism is certainly valid; I am not so worried about semantics, only about making the manipulations fit. The decision to go with likelihoods is an exception to this, but that is because I doubt that the manipulations would be easy to fit together with no resemblance in semantics... If I were taking more the approach Ben suggests, that is, making reasonable-sounding assumptions and then working forward rather than assuming NARS and working backward, I would have kept the formula from last time (justifying it with the argument mentioned above). Probably this results in a system with many similarities to NARS but differing in the exact formulas, and in the absence of the constant 'k'. --Abram On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry Pei, you are right, I sloppily mis-stated! > > What I should have said was: > > " > the result that the NARS induction and abduction *strength* formulas > each depend on **only one** of their premise truth values ... > " > > Anyway, my point in that particular post was not to say that NARS is either > good or bad in this aspect ... but just to note that this IMO is a > conceptually > important point that should somehow "fall right out" of a probabilistic > (or nonprobabilistic) derivation of NARS, rather than being achieved via > carefully fitting complex formulas to produce it... > > ben g > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > In particular, the result that NARS induction and abduction each >> > depend on **only one** of their premise truth values ... >> >> Ben, >> >> I'm sure you know it in your mind, but this simple description will >> make some people think that NARS is obvious wrong. >> >> In NARS, in induction and abduction the truth value of the conclusion >> depends on the truth values of both premises, but in an asymmetric >> way. It is the "frequency" factor of the conclusion that only depends >> on the frequency of one premise, but not the other. >> >> Unlike deduction, the truth-value function of induction and abduction >> are fundamentally asymmetric (on negative evidence), with respect to >> the two premises. Actually, it is the PLN functions that looks wrong >> to me, on this aspect. ;-) >> >> Pei >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
