A mathematical test for objectivity/subjectivity might be whether
Novamente (or any AGI) could allow, in principle, for the possibility of
different posterior probabilities on bayes rule as can happen under
subjectivism. My thought is that a programmer is essentially forced for
practical reasons to disallow that sort of inconsistency -- that he must
implement an objective interpretation.
The definition of 'probabilistic consistency' that I was using comes from
ET Jaynes' book _Probability Theory - The Logic of Science_, page 114.
These are Jaynes' three 'consistency desiderata' for a probabilistic robot:
1. If a conclusion can be reasoned out in more than one way, then every
possible way must lead to the same result.
2. The robot takes into account all information relevant to the question.
3. The robot always represents equivalent states of information with
equivalent plausibility assignments.
Seems to me that strict enforcement of these desiderata (especially #3)
would make the robot an objective bayesian as opposed to a subjective
bayesian in the De Finetti sense.
-gts
-----
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
