the (actually explicit) assumption underlying the whole
scientific method is that the same causes produces the same results.
That's determinism/inevitabilism and it's only one philosophy of science, if
arguably still the major one. [One set of causes produces one set of
effects]. There's an
The notion of cause is not part of any major scientific theory, actually.
It's a folk-psychology concept that humans use to help them intuitively
understand science and other things. There is no formal notion of causation
in physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Mike
Ben,
So what's the connection according to you between viruses and illness/disease,
heating water and boiling, force applied to object and acceleration of object?
Ben:
The notion of cause is not part of any major scientific theory, actually.
It's a folk-psychology concept that humans use
Ben:
The notion of cause is not part of any major scientific theory, actually.
It's a folk-psychology concept that humans use to help them intuitively
understand science and other things. There is no formal notion of causation in
physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
P.S.
Googling
About F=ma ... I think Norwood Russel Hanson, in Patterns of Discovery,
wrote nicely about the multiple possible interpretations..
About the other things you mention: whether I as a human would describe
these things as causal wasn't really my point.
You can have scientific theories of the form
Cause is a time-bound notion. These processes work both ways in time
-- does a virus cause a disease? Or is the existence of a host a more
significant factor?
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
(Note, I also am unfamiliar with the absence of formal causation from
rigorous scientific fields. So I guessed)
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your
Ben,
My first thought here is that - ironically given recent discussion - this is
entirely a *philosophical* POV.
Yes, a great deal of science takes the form below, i.e. of establishing
correlations - and v. often between biological or environmental factors and
diseases.
However, it is
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what's the connection according to you between
viruses and illness/disease, heating water and boiling,
force applied to object and acceleration of object?
Observing illness causes me to believe a virus might be present. Observing
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Sun, 10/26/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what's the connection according to you between
viruses and illness/disease, heating water and boiling,
force applied to object and acceleration of object?
Observing illness causes me to believe a virus
AIXI shows a couple interesting things...
-- truly general AI, even assuming the universe is computable, is impossible
for any finite system
-- given any finite level L of general intelligence that one desires, there
are some finite R, M so that you can create a computer with less than R
: Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:21 PM
Subject: AIXI (was Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play chess it is no
AGI)
--- On Sat, 10/25/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ummm. It seems like you were/are saying then that because
AIXI makes an
assumption limiting it's own applicability/proof
scientific method is that the same causes
produces the same results. Comments?
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 7:48 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: AIXI (was Re: [agi] If your AGI can't learn to play
chess it is no AGI
can't learn to play
chess it is no AGI)
AIXI shows a couple interesting things...
-- truly general AI, even assuming the universe is computable, is impossible
for any finite system
-- given any finite level L of general intelligence that one desires, there
are some finite R, M so that you
14 matches
Mail list logo
