**From:** Marc Geddes (*marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz*)

**Date:** Mon Jul 18 2005 - 22:28:41 MDT

**Next message:**H C: "Re: Universalising an AGI's duty of care"**Previous message:**Marc Geddes: "Idea dump - Key points from my early Theory of Everything'"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "RE: The Geddes conjecture"**Next in thread:**pdugan: "RE: The Geddes conjecture"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

wrote:

*> Marc Geddes wrote:
*

*> > Prediction: Calculations of determinstic outcomes
*

*> > based on fixed initial conditions
*

*> >
*

*> > Projection: Calculations of a *range* of possible
*

*> > outcomes based on changing conditions.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> What is the bloody difference here? None worth
*

*> arguing about that I can
*

*> see.
*

*>
*

*> Let me rephrase for you: Your system produces a
*

*> list of outcomes
*

*> ordered by their computed probability. This is your
*

*> first-order
*

*> prediction. If you pop the first element off the
*

*> list, you can build
*

*> another list, a second-order prediction based on the
*

*> first-order
*

*> prediction. Oops, I mean "projection". Get as
*

*> fancy as you want with
*

*> your probability lists, it is a distinction without
*

*> a difference.
*

*>
*

*> In short, the difference is a few lines of code in
*

*> implementation. And
*

*> that is a difference not worth discussing here as
*

*> far as I can tell.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> j. andrew rogers
*

*>
*

*>
*

Hmm, it seems my last post completely passed every-one

by again *sigh*

Let me try one last time to explain why I think the

distinction betwen *Projection* and *Prediction* is

important. I will also sketch why I think the

Bayesian probability framework is seriously incomplete

(the two points are related).

O.K, I want every-one on the SL4 list to try to

*project* their own futures - what do you think you'll

be doing in:

(a) 1 hour from now?

(b) 1 day from now?

(c) 1 year from now?

(d) 10 years from now?

To carry through this process, you have to include in

your projections the effects of possible courses of

action that YOU took at earlier times. Projecting

forward your life is *not* like projecting forward

possible outcomes of a chess game for instance. The

reason is that the world can exert feed-back on you.

To project yourself forward in time to possible

outcomes, you have to extrapolate not only the results

of your possible actions on the world, but also THE

FEED-BACK RESULTING FROM THESE ACTIONS. So the

possible futures you're projecting for yourself are

becoming more and more dependent on previous earlier

choices you made as you move the projection forward in

time.

And this is what breaks Bayes. It took me a long

time, but I finally pin-pointed the exact flaw that

smashes the Bayesian framework. The flaw in Bayes is

that it assumes that the objective external things

being reasoned about can be completely isolated from

the internal *process of reasoning itself*.

Is it possible to assign objective probabilities on

the signfigance of external observations without

reference to the internal procedures (cognitive

processes) used to make these observations? Bayes

assumes that it is. I say, it is not. The same

external observation can result in a different

probability based on the *procedure* (cognitive

process) used to make the observations.

Comprehende?

--- 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' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html --- Please visit my web-site: Mathematics, Mind and Matter http://www.riemannai.org/ --- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

**Next message:**H C: "Re: Universalising an AGI's duty of care"**Previous message:**Marc Geddes: "Idea dump - Key points from my early Theory of Everything'"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "RE: The Geddes conjecture"**Next in thread:**pdugan: "RE: The Geddes conjecture"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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