On 2/3/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do mean A, but I don't think it is so trivial to prove, even though it is conceptually obvious...
Well, it's about the perspective one is taking. If your criterion for defining whether a result is correct is whether it agrees with probability theory (as used by an omniscient entity) - a reasonable criterion in this context, and I imagine the one you're using - then it trivially follows that the correct result is the one that agrees with probability theory; if not, it doesn't. It's not the sort of thing that needs or allows formal proof. I agree that the answer to B is no, and I think that B is also harder
to define. What does "explicitly making use of..." really mean, in a general sense?
Yeah. In the salesman case, does the average human salesman explicitly use probability theory? In one sense no, he has no declarative knowledge of it. In another sense some; I imagine there are neural circuits in the human brain that, looked at in the right way, are approximately isomorphic to some probability theory calculations. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
