It is an application of the rule error. One of my main arguments is that while weighted reasoning systems (such as fuzzy logic) could be shaped to accommodate this kind of rule error (by finding the additional information that is needed to resolve it), I believe it is more insightful to recognize that the application of a rule (or any inference-like result) has to be sophisticated enough to deal with a possible situation in order to recognize it. Rules, and indeed all ideas, have to be applied to objects of reference. These objects of reference may themselves be represented with other ideas. But this means that the program has to be able to deal with greater complexity. Jim Bromer
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:04 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
