I agree that each school has its own insights, and none has all the
insights...
I would say that the subjectivists are more fully correct and
consistent within the scope of what they say, however.
And their work leads to what I think is the right conclusion about
probability and AGI: when you can construct an internal model of part
of the world, so that everything is consistent within the model, then
you can reason via probability...
ben
On Feb 4, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Pei Wang wrote:
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
-----
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
