Kevin Copple wrote: > "Thinking" in humans, much like genetic evolution, seems to involve > predominately trial and error. Even the "logic" we like to use is more > often than not faulty, but can lead us to try something different. And > example of popular logic that is invariably faulty is reasoning > by analogy. > It is attractive, but always breaks down on close examination. But this > type of reasoning will lead to a trial that may succeed, possibly > because of > the attractive similarities, but more likely in spite of them.
I don't agree with this paragraph, although I see some truth in it. I think that "trial and error" based idea-evolution is one important aspect of human cognition, but not the *predominant* aspect. It may predominate in some circumstances, but these would be unusual ones where there was little pertinent background knowledge.... Analogical inference can be formulated rigorously in probabilistic terms. It does have a "guesswork" aspect to it, but it's a well-organized way of managing conditional probabilities... in my view ;_) In Novamente, we have an EvolutionaryConceptCreation MindAgent which explicitly uses trial and error to create new ideas. But it is intended for use together with other MindAGents, including those implementing probabilistic inference .... If you set the parameters of the system so that evolutionary concept creation predominated, I think you'd find a system with far below optimal functionality.. Traditional logic-based AI has badly underemphasized the role of trial and error, but I'm afraid you're swinging to the opposite extreme !! -- Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
