Vladimir, On 4/24/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Steve Richfield > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree with you that you can't just consider something to be "true" or > > "false" based on a few observations, but you DO have to make binary > > decisions based on whatever it is that you do know. Those decisions may > > reflect an underlying "belief" that isn't truly held, but who cares what > the > > neurons/transistors are doing when all externally observable evidence is > > that they DO hold sometimes superstitious "beliefs". > > > > If you have to perform some action, and all you've got is a guess, you > act on it, nothing better can be done. But at least you make the best > of information that you can get your sensors on.
My favorite is people who fall into the thought-trap and say "but, I had no choice...". There are few binary decisions in life, as there are almost always nonlinear approaches. Sometimes the decision NOT to choose either of the two obvious paths is based more on uncertainty than on information. Suppose that I gave you a choice of two paths to proceed on, and I informed you that one of them had a hidden land mine on it. The one on the right appears to be a short cut. Which one would you choose - the one to the right, or the one to the left - or would you simply refuse to play this dangerous game? > > > Also, I fail to see how Beyesian approaches will disfavor religious > beliefs, > > as religious beliefs are absolutely perfect explainers, and hence will > > "float to the top" of probabilities once you roll in observation errors > that > > will reduce all other probabilities. > > > > A theory is strong not when data support it, or when it doesn't > support the wrong data, but when it can distinguish between the two. > God hypothesis is as useful as a coin flip in its power to detect the > facts. A weak theory, on the other hand, that says "zebra!" only in > 0.09% of cases when the track is zebra's, and in 0.08% of cases when > it's not zebra's, is much better. Hmm, if I remember my math from long ago... To distinguish between these two rates would take ~10^8 observations - probably more than anyone would get in a lifetime. Until then, you would go with the best explanation that is available, namely, that an unseen power (maybe God, or maybe just superstition in the mind of the zebras) is controlling this. In any case, the travels of zebras is almost certainly NOT random. Further, our ability to observe "God's" actions and form statistics thereon in no way diminishes the prospects of God existing. We could at once have a slight advantage as you describe, but also believe that this is all the result of observing divine action based on things we know nothing about, and hence could change at any time without our knowledge. How many consecutive zebras would you have to see to decide that the God explanation is more likely than your statistical predictor? I suspect that somewhere along the way to 10^8 observations, that you would accidentally see enough zebras that even you might start to become religious. In a very real and logical sense, atheism is a MUCH more radical belief system than is most religions, because it requires you to REJECT the most obvious explanation despite obvious evidence supporting it. It is unclear (to me) how it is that a future AGI is to make this leap of non-faith. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
