From: Phillip Huggan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 00:51:54 MST
When assigning probabilities to things (such as time horizons for sl4 technologies), I label one slice of the probability pie to the category *unknown/unknowable*. For areas of study I know well the unknown slice is a sliver. Is this the same thing that is being described as weighting the bayesian probabilities? Isn't it easier to make this a one step process, or is there a reason why only two options must be presented for any given probability branch?
Marc Geddes <email@example.com> wrote: <SNIP>
Is there such a thing as
'a probability of a probability' ?
See a new paper by Robin Hanson arguing for a new
Bayesian framework wherein probabilities can be
assigned to priors:
Also see blog entry by Ben Goertzel:
*The management of uncertainty in the human brain: new
"In other words, some of us maverick AI theorists have
been saying for a while that using just ONE number
(typically probability) to measure uncertainty is not
enough. Two numbers -- e.g. a probability and another
number measuring the "weight of evidence" in favor of
this probability (or to put it differently, the
"confidence" one has in the probability) -- are needed
to make a cognitively meaningful algebra of
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT