2008/10/28 Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On the other hand, I just want to point out that to get around Hume's > complaint you do need to make *some* kind of assumption about the regularity > of the world. What kind of assumption of this nature underlies your work on > NARS (if any)?
Not directed to me, but my take on this interesting question. The initial architecture would have limited assumptions about the world. Then the programming in the architecture would for the bias. Initially the system would divide up the world into the simple (inanimate) and highly complex (animate). Why should the system expect animate things to be complex? Because it applies the intentional stance and thinks that they are optimal problem solvers. Optimal problems solvers in a social environment tend to high complexity, as there is an arms race as to who can predict the others, but not be predicted and exploited by the others. Thinking, "there are other things like me out here," when you are a complex entity entails thinking things are complex, even when there might be simpler explanations. E.g. what causes weather. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
