When I was reading Aristotle I remember some passage that basically asked "how could nothing be true and nothing be false?" Answer: if there were no people. That's not the end of it, obviously, but important.
On 3/17/13, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > An assertion is the notion of the truth of the assertion as something that > can be considered (is what I meant to say of course.) > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I didn't mean to say that using probability and weighted reasoning were >> wrong or something. I just meant that you cannot use probability without >> the supposition of a logically sound frame (or something). >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Charles, >>> The notion of the probability of a prediction (an expectation in general >>> human language) is nonsensical if you have ruled out assertions. Since >>> you >>> are not ruling out assertions you are unwittingly allowing the notion of >>> "truth" in the front door even as you are chasing it out the back. An >>> assertion is a notion of the truth of the assertion as a likely >>> possibility. If you are saying that an AGI program was capable of >>> somewhat >>> reliably deducing the probability of a prediction then you are asserting >>> that the process was based on the strength and the truth of the >>> application >>> of the methods used to derive those probabilities. >>> >>> If it were easy for a computer program to attain the probability of an >>> event based on observations of past events then this kind of discussion >>> would not be relevant to AGI. The problem is that events are actually >>> complexities which are not only composed of distinct 'kinds' of events >>> and >>> some background 'noise' but of different variations of 'kinds' of events >>> and a lot of other events. The science of using probability and >>> statistics is premised on the methodical actions of an agent who is not >>> only intelligent but highly trained in the science of the applied >>> statistical methods. The idea that intelligence can be founded on >>> statistics is backwards. >>> Jim Bromer >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Charles Hixson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/19/2013 11:03 AM, Piaget Modeler wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm sure this topic has been discussed before. Sorry for rehashing it >>>> if so. I have a specific question I'd like to answer. >>>> >>>> >>>> In designing a cognitive system, someone made a criticism that utterly >>>> confounded me. And got me thinking. >>>> >>>> The system receives sensory data sets from the world and transforms >>>> them into percept propositions which it asserts to >>>> its memory. Each percept proposition is activated when it is asserted. >>>> Infereneces are made from these percepts. >>>> These initial percepts and its inferences are called "Observables". >>>> All >>>> observables can be activated, but there is only a >>>> notion of activation. >>>> >>>> Next, the system can predict that these observables will recur at some >>>> point. But the prediction refers only to predicting >>>> the re-activation of observables. >>>> >>>> Then some one asked, where is the notion of TRUTH in your system. I >>>> was flabbergasted. Speechless. Then I asked >>>> well what is truth? I checked wikipedia. ( >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ) >>>> >>>> >>>> It turns out that when someone says something is true, it means a very >>>> many things: >>>> >>>> a) It means that the statement is logically consistent (validity), >>>> b) that the statement corresponds, concurs, or conforms to reality >>>> (verity), >>>> c) that one is sure of the statement (certainty / confidence), >>>> d) that the statement is likely to occur rather than unlikely >>>> (Likelihood), and >>>> e) that we agree with the statement (agreement). >>>> >>>> So my questions are: >>>> >>>> (1) Is truth necessary or important to a cognitive system? >>>> (2) Which notion of truth should a cognitive system model? >>>> (3) How do we ascribe truth (values) to sensory input or inferences >>>> derived from sensory input? >>>> >>>> Your thoughts? >>>> >>>> ~PM. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Confidential *- *This message is meant solely for the intended >>>> recipient. Please do not copy or forward this message without * >>>> *the consent of the sender. If you have received this message in error, >>>> please delete the message and notify the sender.* >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/232072-58998042> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>>> Truth is an illusion. It is the belief that what you believe to be >>>> most >>>> likely is, in fact, inevitable. >>>> >>>> An AI doesn't need the concept of truth...except to communicate with >>>> people. Internally it can operate off of graded degrees of >>>> probability, >>>> cost, benefit, etc. When communicating with people it needs to >>>> condense >>>> that so that when something has more than a certain amount of >>>> probability, >>>> and the benefit of asserting it is sufficiently large, and the cost of >>>> being wrong is sufficiently small, then it synopsizes this as >>>> proclaiming >>>> "truth". It's my belief that people operate in the same way, though >>>> this >>>> is disguised because different people use different constraints on >>>> things >>>> like "What is probable enough?". Also note that the cost and the >>>> benefit >>>> are figured on the basis of the cost/benefit to the entity proclaiming >>>> a >>>> truth rather than on those accepting it. >>>> >>>> So perhaps we would want a sufficiently capable AI to avoid talking >>>> about truth, and instead talk about what the probabilities are, and >>>> what >>>> costs and benefits can be expected. It's a bit harder to understand, >>>> but >>>> it strikes me as much safer. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Charles Hixson >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-470149cf> | >>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
