RE: Bayesian epistemology versus Geddesian epistemology

From: Marc Geddes (
Date: Mon May 30 2005 - 23:52:48 MDT

>As a side comment, I also of course reject Marc
>Geddes' suggestion that
>Bayesian inference and deduction are unrelated.

I never suggested any such thing Ben. *Of course*
Bayesian inference and deduction are related. What I
was doubting was whether they could be *completely*
integreted. Can deduction be completely integrated
into the Bayesian framework, or is there something
(however small) amiss?

Honestly, I sometimes think I'm dealing with people
who are all mildly autistic or have aspergers when
talking to software engineer types (not referring to
you Ben, only to some others on this list).

Too many people seem to think that pattern recognition
and prediction making is sufficient for general
intelligence. It isn't. General intelligence
consists of a prediction system AND a goal system.
For sure pattern recognition/prediction are of course
a major *part* of general intelligence and the
Bayesian framework is *part* of the solution, but are
they *sufficient* for general intelligence?

I keep pointing out that general intelligence consists
of *two* integrated systems: a system for
*evaluating*/*formulating goals* and a system for
*making predictions* Everyone seems to have focused
on the latter and overlooked the former.

What effect will a complete solution for the goal
system have on the solution for the prediction system?
  Don't assume that these two systems are independent.

The interaction between induction and deduction is
clearly the weak link in the Bayesian picture.

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside. 
-Emily Dickinson
'The brain is wider than the sky'
Please visit my web-site:
Mathematics, Mind and Matter
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT