That's not what I meant. I don't think that people really operate on
the basis of probabilistic calculations, but rather on short-range
attractors. What I see them being motivated by is the "dream of
riches", which feels closer when they take steps, even unlikely ones, to
achieve it.
I said
On 2/7/07, Kevin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My program crashes, prints something about 8192.
My program crashes, prints something about 10001.
My program crashes, prints something about 3721.
I'd wonder if you've seen the movie "Pi" and perhaps taken it too seriously :)
-
This l
Indefinite probability is of course a pure mathematical notion, but it's
one intended for utilization in an AGI context --- and it is
currently being
used in the Novamente system.
Understanding the semantics of indefinite probabilities is important
to Novamente -- if by "understanding the sem
I knew a lot of gamblers when I lived in Vegas.
Of course, motivations were mixed. Some people did gamble even
though they had an accurate idea of the odds, just for the fun of
it. However, this was a rare case. Nearly all gamblers had an
overoptimistic view of their odds (they knew th
Ben,
In general, a mathematical theory can has multiple interpretations,
and it doesn't make sense to ask which is the "correct" one. However,
for a given application, different interpretations are no longer
equal.
Each different interpretations of probability does have its value, but
in the AGI
gts wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:57:04 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The dramatic probabilistic incoherency of humans is demonstrated by
human behavior in casinos.
You mean something more stringent than me by the word incoherency,
then. Human betting behavior in casinos is
H Peii,
As a mathematician (although I've forgotten nearly all the math I used
to know in the many years since I actually practiced serious
mathematics)
I take a slightly different attitude...
The mathematics of indefinite probabilities is what it is ... and is
actually
all we need to guid
Ben,
What you just wrote makes sense.
However, I always feel that defining probability by betting preference
is to "put the cart before the horse".
To me, the best part of the subjective approach is to strongly argue
that "probability" is nothing but "degree of belief", and that for the
same be
As I understand it, his idea was that if you set your operational
subjective probability
(as defined e.g. in the betting game I suggested) equal to the
correct conditional
probability, then you won't be subject to losing $$ in Dutch Book
arrangements...
My terminological error was in using
I don't really care about what label you use, but wonder if you get de
Finetti's idea right, which is largely motivated by the worry about
Dutch Book.
Pei
On 2/7/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, sorry if I used the term wrong. The actual game is clearly
defined though even if I
This is simply a re-post of my prior post, with corrected
terminology, but unchanged substance:
Suppose we have a category C of discrete events, e.g. a set of tosses
of a certain coin
which has heads on one side and tails on the other.
Next, suppose we have a predicate S, which
Ok, sorry if I used the term wrong. The actual game is clearly
defined though even if I
attached the wrong label to it. I will resubmit the post with
corrected terminology...
ben
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Pei Wang wrote:
Ben,
Before going into the details of your description, I feel
Ben,
Before going into the details of your description, I feel that your
usage of "Dutch book" is different from what it usually means for
subjectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_book) --- it is not a
special type of betting procedure, but a sure win (or loss) setting.
Therefore, "you se
On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, gts wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:07:13 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
only under an independence assumption.
True, I did not make the independence assumption explicit.
Note that dutch books cannot be made against an AGI that does not
claim t
Pei, gts and others:
I will now try to rephrase my ideas about indefinite probabilities
and betting, since my prior
exposition was not well-understood.
What I am suggesting is pretty different from Walley's ideas about
betting and imprecise probabilities, and so
far as I can tell is also d
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:07:13 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
only under an independence assumption.
True, I did not make the independence assumption explicit.
Note that dutch books cannot be made against an AGI that does not claim
to have knowledge it does not have.
That is
On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:48 PM, gts wrote:
Ben,
Of course the world is an enormously complex relation of
interdependencies between many causes and effects. I do not dispute
that fact.
I question however whether this should really be an important
consideration in developing AGI.
One's pro
Ben,
Of course the world is an enormously complex relation of interdependencies
between many causes and effects. I do not dispute that fact.
I question however whether this should really be an important
consideration in developing AGI.
One's probabilistic judgements should always be justi
I understand the difference between a casino game and a Dutch book
situation.
What I meant was that the same psychological/cognitive traits that
lead humans to get screwed in casinos in simple situations, lead us
to make inaccurate probability estimates that make us vulnerable to
dutch
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:57:04 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The dramatic probabilistic incoherency of humans is demonstrated by
human behavior in casinos.
You mean something more stringent than me by the word incoherency, then.
Human betting behavior in casinos is stupid but
Not at all: Coherency in the sense of de Finetti, regarding
reasonably complex everyday situations, is out of reach for humans as
well as for modest-resources AGIs...
The dramatic probabilistic incoherency of humans is demonstrated by
human behavior in casinos. But, even if AGIs aren't t
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:02:11 -0500, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consistency in the sense of de Finetti or Cox is out of reach for a
modest-resources AGI, in principle...
Sorry to be the one to break the news...
You used the word "consistency" instead of the word "coherency" that
22 matches
Mail list logo
