Ben, I don't have much more to say on this thread, so will stop here.
While reading your writing on the philosophy of science, I put my old writing on the same topic at http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/drafts/6-science.html for comparison and comments. Pei > In practice, when testing an inference system or an AGI system generally, > one tends to compare the system's inferences to *human* inferences. Not > necessarily the inferences of the average human, but the inferences of an > educated, rational human with a lot of time to think and calculate and weigh > various options. > > However, this isn't an absolute criterion. The problem of how to compare > various systems of thought in the absence of the assumption of an common > external world occurs in the philosophy of science, and is discussed in my > recent essay > > http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/PhilosophyOfScience_v2.htm > > Basically, one can study how many unexpected and correct predictions the > system makes, how simple are the explanations it concocts for newly observed > phenomena, etc. These criteria can be applied from the perspective of an > outside evaluator, but they can also be applied from the perspective of *the > system itself* (i.e. the system can serve as the judge of unexpectedness, > simplicity, etc.) > > -- Ben G > > > > > > > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
