On 6/1/2016 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact my definition of rational belief is very simple: a machine
beliefs p if she asserts p. Then I limit myself to rational believers
because it would be nonsense to interview a non rational machine to
derive rationally, following the UDA prescription, the correct physics
or the correct theology.
But what does "rational" mean? I think you mean "proves all valid
theorems from some set of axioms", which is not what it means when
applied to humans.
Brent
Note that correct beliefs does NOT mean knowledge (in the sense of the
machine). The machine is not aware, and never will, that her beliefs
are in general correct. Knowledge, contrarily is correct *by
definition*, as it is formally defined, at the necessary meta-level,
by correct-beliefs. This is a subtle but extremely important point
made possible only thanks to incompleteness. (For those who have the
book by Gerson on Antic Epistemology, that is the precise point where
Gerson critics of the Theatetus" definition of knowledge get wrong:
it is the difference between a belief which happen to be correct, and
a belief restricted (non constructively) to correct proposition).
The goal is to derive physics and theology, not human psychology.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
