**From:** Jef Allbright (*jef@jefallbright.net*)

**Date:** Thu Sep 15 2005 - 21:03:19 MDT

**Next message:**Michael Wilson: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "Hempel's paradox redux"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "Hempel's paradox redux"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ben -

I've been watching the last few days' discussion and wondering how closely

this relates to your position that subjective experience is primary relative

to the "objective".

I suspect both of these positions of yours may have some basis in common.

- Jef

On 9/15/05, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

*>
*

*>
*

*> 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:**Michael Wilson: "Re: Hempel's paradox redux"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "Hempel's paradox redux"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "Hempel's paradox redux"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Hempel's paradox redux"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "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
*