Most certainly ... and the human mind seems to make a lot of other, more specialized assumptions about the environment also ... so that unless the environment satisfies a bunch of these other more specialized assumptions, its adaptation will be very slow and resource-inefficient...
ben g On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We can say the same thing for the human mind, right? > > Pei > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sure ... but my point is that unless the environment satisfies a certain > > Occam-prior-like property, NARS will be useless... > > > > ben > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Ben, > >> > >> You assert that Pei is forced to make an assumption about the > >> regulatiry of the world to justify adaptation. Pei could also take a > >> different argument. He could try to show that *if* a strategy exists > >> that can be implemented given the finite resources, NARS will > >> eventually find it. Thus, adaptation is justified on a sort of "we > >> might as well try" basis. (The proof would involve showing that NARS > >> searches the state of finite-state-machines that can be implemented > >> with the resources at hand, and is more probable to stay for longer > >> periods of time in configurations that give more reward, such that > >> NARS would eventually settle on a configuration if that configuration > >> consistently gave the highest reward.) > >> > >> So, some form of learning can take place with no assumptions. The > >> problem is that the search space is exponential in the resources > >> available, so there is some maximum point where the system would > >> perform best (because the amount of resources match the problem), but > >> giving the system more resources would hurt performance (because the > >> system searches the unnecessarily large search space). So, in this > >> sense, the system's behavior seems counterintuitive-- it does not seem > >> to be taking advantage of the increased resources. > >> > >> I'm not claiming NARS would have that problem, of course.... just that > >> a theoretical no-assumption learner would. > >> > >> --Abram > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Ben, > >> >> > >> >> Thanks. So the other people now see that I'm not attacking a straw > man. > >> >> > >> >> My solution to Hume's problem, as embedded in the experience-grounded > >> >> semantics, is to assume no predictability, but to justify induction > as > >> >> adaptation. However, it is a separate topic which I've explained in > my > >> >> other publications. > >> > > >> > Right, but justifying induction as adaptation only works if the > >> > environment > >> > is assumed to have certain regularities which can be adapted to. In a > >> > random environment, adaptation won't work. So, still, to justify > >> > induction > >> > as adaptation you have to make *some* assumptions about the world. > >> > > >> > The Occam prior gives one such assumption: that (to give just one > form) > >> > sets > >> > of observations in the world tend to be producible by short computer > >> > programs. > >> > > >> > For adaptation to successfully carry out induction, *some* vaguely > >> > comparable property to this must hold, and I'm not sure if you have > >> > articulated which one you assume, or if you leave this open. > >> > > >> > In effect, you implicitly assume something like an Occam prior, > because > >> > you're saying that a system with finite resources can successfully > >> > adapt to > >> > the world ... which means that sets of observations in the world > *must* > >> > be > >> > approximately summarizable via subprograms that can be executed within > >> > this > >> > system. > >> > > >> > So I argue that, even though it's not your preferred way to think > about > >> > it, > >> > your own approach to AI theory and practice implicitly assumes some > >> > variant > >> > of the Occam prior holds in the real world. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Here I just want to point out that the original and basic meaning of > >> >> Occam's Razor and those two common (mis)usages of it are not > >> >> necessarily the same. I fully agree with the former, but not the > >> >> latter, and I haven't seen any convincing justification of the > latter. > >> >> Instead, they are often taken as granted, under the name of Occam's > >> >> Razor. > >> > > >> > I agree that the notion of an Occam prior is a significant conceptual > >> > beyond > >> > the original "Occam's Razor" precept enounced long ago. > >> > > >> > Also, I note that, for those who posit the Occam prior as a **prior > >> > assumption**, there is not supposed to be any convincing justification > >> > for > >> > it. The idea is simply that: one must make *some* assumption > >> > (explicitly or > >> > implicitly) if one wants to do induction, and this is the assumption > >> > that > >> > some people choose to make. > >> > > >> > -- Ben G > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ________________________________ > >> > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> agi > >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > > -- > > Ben Goertzel, PhD > > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > > Director of Research, SIAI > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, > butcher > > a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, > > build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, > > cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch > manure, > > program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. > > Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein > > > > > > ________________________________ > > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
