On Sep 23, 6:10 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't think it likely that one individual could have gone from B1 to B2
> without being told anything about probability, preference ordering, logic and
> mathematics.  Just because there is a chain of maybe a few hundred individuals
> who did it or contributed to it, it doesn't follow that one person could do 
> it.

Even if that's true, take all the individuals who contributed to the
development of Bayesian math.  Then the set of individuals can be
redefined as functions in a single bigger algorithm, and the same
argument applies.

> However, I recommend William S. Cooper's little book, "The Evolution of 
> Reason"
> which takes your idea of development of modern forms of reasoning from simpler
> forms seriously and fills out details and also suggests further advances.

The question is, how much basic reasoning structure is built into the
human mind?  More than likely, not much, in which case the initial
functionality could be duplicated by a ridicuously simple algorithm.

I'd be willing to wager that all that's there intially (in the human
brain) in terms of reasoning mechanisms are a few very simple high-
level representations , a few very basic analogy-formation techniques,
and a few very simple low-level perceptual 'prims'.

>But they commonly violate the rationality standards of Bayesian inference, i.e.
>they are inconsistent in their assignment of probabilities.

Yes, but doesn't that support what I'm saying?  A few vague fuzzy
feeble human approximations to Bayesian inference were apparently
enough to generate all our current scientific knowledge!

Doesn't this suggest that some ridiculously simple initial algorithm
is sufficient to capture intelligence?
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