**From:** Ben Goertzel (*ben@goertzel.org*)

**Date:** Thu Sep 15 2005 - 20:25:40 MDT

**Next message:**Jef Allbright: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Next in thread:**Jef Allbright: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Jef Allbright: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Just one more thing...

I started out this whole silly thread by saying that:

*> > If probability theory as standardly deployed states that an observation
*

*> > of a non-black non-raven provides a NON-ZERO amount of evidence toward
*

*> > the hypothesis that all ravens are black, then this shows there is
*

*> > something wrong with probability theory as standardly deployed.
*

*> >
*

*> > Of cousre, an approach that yields small errors may still be valuable
*

*> > for practical AI purposes.
*

*> >
*

*> > However, what frustrates me about the quote you cite, and your attitude,
*

*> > is that you seem to be denying that probability theory as standardly
*

*> > deployed is conceptually and logically erroneous in this case -- albeit
*

*> > the magnitude of its error is generally small.
*

I admit that in my followup discussions, after making this statement,

I manifestly failed to demonstrate its truth...

Instead, I made some careless and silly errors, both with the standard

formulation of probability theory and with my own PTL formulation. I

apologize for this -- I'm not usually quite *that* error-prone even

when badly overworked, but what can I say, it happens from time to

time....

However, after all that, I *still* hold the same intuition that I had

originally. And this is with the probabilistic arguments regarding the

Hempel paradox quite fresh in my mind and quite fully understood both

conceptually and arithmetically.

I don't doubt the math of probability theory, but I still have a nagging

intuitive suspicion that the way the math is being applied to this situation

is not conceptually right. Furthermore, I still have the same suspicion

that this conceptual wrongness is related to other problematic issues

with standard AI deployments of probability theory such as Bayes nets.

I will be traveling for most of the next two weeks, so don't expect any

brilliant insights or stupid errors from me in this regard in the immediate

future -- but I suspect we haven't heard the last of this issue.

-- Ben G

**Next message:**Jef Allbright: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Next in thread:**Jef Allbright: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Jef Allbright: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT
*