I didn't emphasize the first flaw in logic, (which is more relevant to your
question, and why such questions will keep recurring and can never be
*methodologically* sorted out) - the assumption that we know what the terms
*refer to*. Example:
Mary says Clinton had sex with her.
Clinton says he wouldn't call that sex.
Who, and how, is an AGI to believe or agree with?
Economist A says the US economy is in recession
Economist B says it depends what you mean by recession.
YKY:Here is an example of a problematic inference:
1. Mary has cybersex with many different partners
2. Cybersex is a kind of sex
3. Therefore, Mary has many sex partners
4. Having many sex partners -> high chance of getting STDs
5. Therefore, Mary has a high chance of STDs
What's wrong with this argument? It seems that a general rule is
involved in step 4, and that rule can be "refined" with some
qualifications (ie, it does not apply to all kinds of sex). But the
question is, how can an AGI detect that an exception to a general rule
has occurred?
Or, do we need to explicitly state the exceptions to every rule?
Thanks for any comments!
YKY
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
