We only know that:
P(sex | cybersex) = high
P(STD | sex) = high
If we're also given that
P(STD | cybersex) = 0
I think you just need a few more bits of knowledge:
P(sex | cybersex) = high
P(STD | sex) = high
P(STD | !contact) = 0
P(contact | cybersex) = 0
The 0-values (0 strength,
Eric,
Thanks for this. I just read his paper, A quantitative theory of
neural computation, and its quite good. It is particularly nice that
he uses human cognition as a basis for defining (and defending) his
models, but also generalizes the models so that they could apply to
non-human-like
Example: Linda is 31, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in
philosophy in college. As a student, she was deeply concerned with
discrimination and other social issues, and she participated in
antinuclear demonstrations. Which statement is more likely to be
true?
a. Linda is a bank
The theoretical presumption here is that once you've solve the problem
of recognizing moderately complex patterns in perceptual data streams,
then you're essentially done with the AGI problem and the rest is just
some wrappers placed around your perception code. I don't think
so I think
. The conversation control is the
human part of me. The car control is the animal mind. Im
guessing that if Numenta makes a lot of progress, they can get that
animal mind. But the work described in that paper doesnt seem to have
much to do with the human aspect of mind.
Mike
On 6/2/06, Mike Ross [EMAIL
