Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I wanted was a set of non-circular definitions of such terms as
"intelligence" and "learning", so that you could somehow *demonstrate*
that your mathematical idealization of these terms correspond with the
real thing, ... so that we could believe that the mathematical
idealizations were not just a fantasy.
The last time I looked at a dictionary, all definitions are circular. So
you
win.
Sigh!
This is a waste of time: you just (facetiously) rejected the
fundamental tenet of science. Which means that the stuff you were
talking about was just pure mathematical fantasy, after all, and nothing
to do with science, or the real world.
Richard Loosemre.
What does the definition of intelligence have to do with AIXI? AIXI is an
optimization problem. The problem is to maximize an accumulated signal in an
unknown environment. AIXI says the solution is to guess the simplest
explanation for past observation (Occam's razor), and that this solution is
not computable in general. I believe these principles have broad
applicability to the design of machine learning algorithms, regardless of
whether you consider such algorithms intelligent.
You're going around in circles.
If you were only talking about "machine learning" in the sense of an
abstract mathematical formalism that has no relationship to "learning,"
"intelligence" or anything going on in the real world, and in particular
the real world in which some of us are interested in the problem of
trying to build an intelligent system, then, fine, all power to you. At
*that* level you are talking about a mathematical fantasy, not about
science.
But you did not do that: you made claims that went far beyond the
confines of a pure, abstract mathematical formalism: you tried to
relate that to an explanation of why Occam's Razor works (and remember,
the original meaning of Occam's Razor was all about how an *intelligent*
being should use its intelligence to best understand the world), and you
also seemed to make inferences to the possibility that the real world
was some kind of simulation.
It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
