On Jul 31, 1:26 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Popper showed that an infinite number of theories is compatible is any
> > given set of finite observations.  Mere algorithmic shuffling to
> > calculate Pr(B) probablities according to the Bayes formula won't help
> > much. Successful induction needs principles to set the priors are set
> > correctly.
> Yes, I was partially agreeing with you. Psychotic people often still
> manage very well with deductive reasoning, but they get the big
> picture wrong, obviously and ridiculously wrong. So there must be more
> to discovering truth about the world than mere algorithmic shuffling.
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou- Hide quoted text -

Ah.  Good.  Glad to hear you agree.  Incidentally, there was a feature
in the last edition of 'New Scientist' in the 'Opinion' section, about
what's wrong with 'excessive rationality':


>The idea is that good mathematics is beautiful. Good music and paintings
often have a deep mathematical structure.

No reason to throw away the math.


True Gunther, but working out math ain't my job, and I don't need it
to built an AI any way.  AI's an engineering problem, not a science
problem.  I'm not terribly concerned about *what is* (science),....
I'm a lot more interested in *what could be* (creative hacking).

There's far too many geeks on Internet messageboards and blogs
babbling away about abstract theories of *what is* (science).  This
detracts from the business of actually working on *what could be*
(creative hacking)

The *what is* of pure math, has a practical counterpart - the *what
could be* of ontology and computer programming ;)  We don't need to
understand the pure math to do the ontology and programming ;)  Just
good design principles.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to