The calculation in which I sum up a bunch of pairs is equivalent to doing NARS induction + abduction with a final big revision at the end to combine all the accumulated evidence. But, like I said, I need to provide a more explicit justification of that calculation...
--Abram On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't see how you get the NARS induction and abduction truth value > formulas out of this, though... > > ben g > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Attached is my attempt at a probabilistic justification for NARS. >> >> --Abram >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
