On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Yes. One of my biggest practical complaints with NARS is that the >> > induction >> > and abduction truth value formulas don't make that much sense to me. >> >> I guess since you are trained as a mathematician, your "sense" has >> been formalized by probability theory to some extent. ;-) > > Actually, the main reason the NARS induction and abduction truth value > formulas > seem counterintuitive to me has nothing to do with my math training...
Of course I was half joking when I said that. But the non-joking half has some truth in it, I believe --- when we get used to a theory, it gets into our judgments implicitly. For example, many people would say that predicate logic is simpler or more natural than term logic, which is really because the former is what they learned in school. > it has to do > with the fact that, in each case, the strength of the conclusion relies on > the strength > of only **one** of the premises. This just does not feel right to me, quite > apart > from any mathematical intuitions or knowledge of probability theory. It > happens > that in this case probability theory agrees with my naive, pretheoretic > intuition... Understand, and I don't think I can change that soon, so I'll stop here. Just to let you know that I'm much more confident about the abduction/induction function than about the deduction function. In the history of NARS, the latter has been modified several times, and I'm still not fully happy with the current one. The former, on the contrary, has never been changed, and I'm perfectly happy with it. >> > PLN is able to make judgments, in every case, using *exactly* the same >> > amount of evidence that NARS is. >> >> Without assumptions on "node probability"? In your example, what is >> the conclusion from PLN if it is only given (1)-(4) ? > > PLN needs to make assumptions about node probability in this case; but NARS > also makes assumptions, it's just that NARS's assumptions are more deeply > hidden in the formalism... If you means assumptions like "insufficient knowledge and resources", you are right, but that is not at the same level as assumptions about the values of node probability. I guess my previous question was not clear enough: if the only domain knowledge PLN has is > Ben is an author of a book on AGI <tv1> > This dude is an author of a book on AGI <tv2> and > Ben is odd <tv1> > This dude is odd <tv2> Will the system derives anything? Pei ------------------------------------------- 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
