gts wrote: > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:27:22 -0500, Jef Allbright > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------- >> You would have to assume that statement 2 is *entirely* >> contingent on statement 1. > --------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't believe so. If statement S is only partially contingent on > some other statement, or contingent on any number of other statements, > then simple coherency demands only that we assign the p of S to be less > than the p of any of those other statements on which S is contingent. It > makes no difference for the sake of coherency how many of those other > statements are known or in memory, nor does it matter whether our assigned > probabilities match "reality".
So here's an example: Johnie (a 3 year old person of relatively narrow context of awareness) is building a house out of wooden blocks. He reasons that if he pulls out a supporting block, then much of the house will fall down. Probability of Event 2 contingent on the probability of Event 1, right? Johnie's very proud of his construction project and wants to keep it. He therefore reasons that the probability of him pulling that block out is very low, and according to his friend Gordon the probability of the contingent event must be even lower. Gordon has assured him that this is always true, regardless of any other considerations, known or unknown. Gordon explains that it's like math, when you subtract you always get a lesser number as a result. It's obvious. So then the wind blows, or there's an earthquake, or a mean kid walks by and kicks it, or the cat plays on it, or--as we of greater awareness knew was highly probable: Johnie's mother tells him to put aways his blocks immediateley because it's time for lunch. Johnie is now upset because his expectation, based on his (lower context) reasoning, didn't match (the greater scope of) his reality. Gordon says not to worry, if he repeats this each day, eventually the probabilities will work out as dictated by logic. [I apologize in advance for the last line, which didn't pertain to your argument but was added just for fun. - Jef] > > I think coherency is probably a necessary but not a sufficient > condition for intelligence. I hope it is not really outside the > range of what is possible in AI. Coherency can only be assessed from a context encompassing the system of interest (and even then it's never certain.) - Jef ----- 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
