Re: "Boy with Incredible Brain"

From: Michael Vassar (
Date: Thu Mar 23 2006 - 05:48:25 MST

Humans already have the shopping list of abilities associated with being a
general intelligence.
There is no reason that they should need solid data about prior
probabilities, just active work reconciling reasonable guesses into a
coherent view.
One great thing about actual normative reasoning, unlike what humans do by
default, is that it's not nearly as vulnerable to GIGO contamination of
initial conditions. While human guesses don't update properly and never
move very far, normative reasoning produces beliefs that fairly rapidly
converge to predictively valuable values even in the absence of good initial

>From: Richard Loosemore <>
>Subject: Re: "Boy with Incredible Brain"
>Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:18:03 -0500

>3) solid data about prior probabilities of at least something (and
>justification for why the numbers *are* solid, of course)

>4) ways to represent subtle questions and statements about real world
>situations in such a format that a Bayesian reasoning system could
>actually do something sensible with them (for example, answering
>questions about abstract analogies)

>if all this apparatus is just
>feeding the Bayesian module heaps of low quality data, then heaps of low
>quality conclusions are what you get out the other end.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT