On 2/4/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As you know I feel differently. I think the traditional subjectivist interpretation is conceptually well-founded as far as it goes,
But it still requires consistency --- actually it is its only requirement. If this requirement is dropped, then there is little left in the subjectivist school. At least the logical school tried to tell us where probability comes (from evidence), and the frequentist school tried to tell us where probability goes (converges to the limit of frequency). Pei
but incomplete (not dealing e.g. with the multiple components of truth value), whereas the traditional frequentist interpretation is conceptually confused... But, I definitely don't think these interpretation-of-probability issues are the bottlenecks on the path to AGI... ben ----- 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
----- 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
