From: "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >[...] On the other hand, the part of NARS that is inconsistent >with PT (such as the induction rule and the abduction rule) >looks simply wrong, and it conflicts with the results of >experiments designed according to PT.
I took a brief look at your NARS site, but I haven't read the papers yet. Just a quick question: Do you think your ideas of induction and abduction etc can be formulated in a Bayesian framework? It has been proven that any dynamical neural net that do pattern recognition are equivalent to Bayesian classifiers; It should come as no surprise that the visual part of our brain appears Bayesian. By the way, an interesting example is the following: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, ___ ? Which all of us will give the answer 256, but a simple Bayesian generalization will give 99. It'd be interesting to see how NARS will respond to this type of problems. YKY ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
