Ben, Thanks. So the other people now see that I'm not attacking a straw man.
My solution to Hume's problem, as embedded in the experience-grounded semantics, is to assume no predictability, but to justify induction as adaptation. However, it is a separate topic which I've explained in my other publications. Here I just want to point out that the original and basic meaning of Occam's Razor and those two common (mis)usages of it are not necessarily the same. I fully agree with the former, but not the latter, and I haven't seen any convincing justification of the latter. Instead, they are often taken as granted, under the name of Occam's Razor. Pei On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Pei, > > This is an interesting perspective; I just want to clarify for others on the > list that it is a particular and controversial perspective, and contradicts > the perspectives of many other well-informed research professionals and deep > thinkers on relevant topics. > > Many serious thinkers in the area *do* consider Occam's Razor a standalone > postulate. This fits in naturally with the Bayesian perspective, in which > one needs to assume *some* prior distribution, so one often assumes some > sort of Occam prior (e.g. the Solomonoff-Levin prior, the speed prior, etc.) > as a standalone postulate. > > Hume pointed out that induction (in the old sense of extrapolating from the > past into the future) is not solvable except by introducing some kind of a > priori assumption. Occam's Razor, in one form or another, is a suitable a > prior assumption to plug into this role. > > If you want to replace the Occam's Razor assumption with the assumption that > "the world is predictable by systems with limited resources, and we will > prefer explanations that consume less resources", that seems unproblematic > as it's basically equivalent to assuming an Occam prior. > > On the other hand, I just want to point out that to get around Hume's > complaint you do need to make *some* kind of assumption about the regularity > of the world. What kind of assumption of this nature underlies your work on > NARS (if any)? > > ben > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Triggered by several recent discussions, I'd like to make the >> following position statement, though won't commit myself to long >> debate on it. ;-) >> >> Occam's Razor, in its original form, goes like "entities must not be >> multiplied beyond necessity", and it is often stated as "All other >> things being equal, the simplest solution is the best" or "when >> multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle >> recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions >> and postulates the fewest entities" --- all from >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor >> >> I fully agree with all of the above statements. >> >> However, to me, there are two common misunderstandings associated with >> it in the context of AGI and philosophy of science. >> >> (1) To take this statement as self-evident or a stand-alone postulate >> >> To me, it is derived or implied by the insufficiency of resources. If >> a system has sufficient resources, it has no good reason to prefer a >> simpler theory. >> >> (2) To take it to mean "The simplest answer is usually the correct >> answer." >> >> This is a very different statement, which cannot be justified either >> analytically or empirically. When theory A is an approximation of >> theory B, usually the former is simpler than the latter, but less >> "correct" or "accurate", in terms of its relation with all available >> evidence. When we are short in resources and have a low demand on >> accuracy, we often prefer A over B, but it does not mean that by doing >> so we judge A as more correct than B. >> >> In summary, in choosing among alternative theories or conclusions, the >> preference for simplicity comes from shortage of resources, though >> simplicity and correctness are logically independent of each other. >> >> 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/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher > a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, > build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, > cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, > program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. > Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein > > > ________________________________ > 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
