**From:** H C (*lphege@hotmail.com*)

**Date:** Sat Feb 18 2006 - 10:15:43 MST

**Next message:**Tyler Emerson: "RE: Reminder: SIAI Challenge expires this Sunday | SIAI February news"**Previous message:**Maru Dubshinki: "Re: Fundamental problems"**In reply to:**Marc Geddes: "RE: Fundamental problems"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm reading the book right now and it actually

addresses a lot of the stuff you are referring to.

Like the phrase "probability of a probability". Also he talks about the Mind

project fallacy with reference to trying to use fuzzy set theory.

Of course, now that I look through the book to find these things, I can't

find a single goddamn sentence. I know it's in there though. I don't know.

Something about a probability of a probability is actually a probability of

a frequency, if you start with the finite and take the infinite only as a

well-defined limit.

Personally, I don't think you are stupid. I like your style. Hehe.

-hegem0n

*>From: Marc Geddes <m_j_geddes@yahoo.com.au>
*

*>Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
*

*>To: sl4@sl4.org
*

*>Subject: RE: Fundamental problems
*

*>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:21:05 +1100 (EST)
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>--- H C <lphege@hotmail.com> wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > Hi,
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> > 'Probability Theory : The Logic of Science' by E. T.
*

*> > Jaynes
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521592712/102-0054744-3138528?n=283155
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> > Sincerely,
*

*> >
*

*> > hegem0n
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*>Um, 'Uncommon Priors Require Origin Disputes' by
*

*>Robin Hanson
*

*>http://hanson.gmu.edu/prior.pdf
*

*>
*

*>Sincerely,
*

*>Marc
*

*>
*

*>And please don't try to copy Eliezer's obnoxious lines
*

*>(the nauseating 'Sincerly'). Come up with your own
*

*>obnoxious lines.
*

*>
*

*>Mitch was specfically calling for people on the SL4
*

*>list to attempt to define the problem of goal
*

*>stability. It appears no one but me has the balls to
*

*>attempt it - all afraid of looking stupid I suppose -
*

*>there's no more worries for me on that score ;)
*

*>
*

*>The solution to goal stability couldn't be frigging
*

*>clearer
*

*>
*

*>I've been screaming the metaphysics of the universe
*

*>out on the transhumanist lists for a couple of years
*

*>now. My reward was to be laballed a crack-pot and
*

*>I was even lumped in with that Mentifex idiot!
*

*>
*

*>The answer is so frigging obvious it's painful. The
*

*>Bayesian framework needed to be extended to deal with
*

*>the notion of 'a probability of a probability'. I've
*

*>been saying over and over again for years that the
*

*>Bayesian framework needed to be extended. Robin
*

*>Hanson's new paper has the right idea that I was
*

*>looking for and there's a precise new theory in there
*

*>for how this could be done:
*

*>
*

*>http://hanson.gmu.edu/prior.pdf
*

*>
*

*>Bayesian probability theory can be reformulated as a
*

*>new kind of fuzzy set theory. Then the notion of 'a
*

*>probability of a probability' amounts to the notion of
*

*>classes of sets (how sets can be grouped together).
*

*>
*

*>In order to make this precise you needed to extend set
*

*>theory - by creating TWO different definitions of a
*

*>*Set*.
*

*>
*

*>One definition of a *Set* concerns Sets which have
*

*>physical and mental concepts as members. The other
*

*>definition of a *Set* concerns Sets which have *other
*

*>sets* as members. Not all collections of sets are
*

*>premitted to be grouped together into a larger set
*

*>(Mathematical *classes* which are not sets are really
*

*>'failed sets' with no mathematical existence).
*

*>
*

*>What does all this have to do with goal stability?
*

*>It's obvious! Imagine different successive states for
*

*>a self-improving AGI - each an 'improvement' on the
*

*>last. Each 'state' of an AGI system is really a
*

*>Bayesian reasoning machine, consisting of a web of
*

*>probabilistic associations. So each 'state' of the
*

*>AGI is really a fuzzy set. When the AI changes to a
*

*>new state, this amounts to a new 'fuzzy set' being
*

*>created. The problem of goal stability amounts to
*

*>ensuring that all the new fuzzy sets (all the future
*

*>states of the AI) fall into the same *class* (namely
*

*>the class of 'Friendly' Bayesian reasoning machines).
*

*>In other words there needs to be a way of assessing
*

*>the 'probability of the probability' (because Bayesian
*

*>reasoning has to be used to analyze the different
*

*>mathematical 'states' of an AGI system - and each such
*

*>'state' is itself a Bayesian reasoning machine - a web
*

*>of statistical associations - or a 'fuzzy set').
*

*>
*

*>As mentioned above, this is done by extending set
*

*>theory to create TWO different notions of a fuzzy set,
*

*>corresponding to TWO different kinds of probability
*

*>theory (one class of probabilities deals with physical
*

*>and mental concepts, the other class of probabilities
*

*>deal with mathematical concepts - i.e 'probabilities
*

*>of probabilities' - a 'probability' itself being a
*

*>mathematical concept).
*

*>
*

*>To think I was lumped in the same category as
*

*>Mentifex. Sheeh.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared,
*

*>screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on
*

*>the last day”
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>____________________________________________________
*

*>Do you Yahoo!?
*

*>Listen to over 20 online radio stations and watch the latest music videos
*

*>on Yahoo! Music.
*

*>http://au.launch.yahoo.com
*

**Next message:**Tyler Emerson: "RE: Reminder: SIAI Challenge expires this Sunday | SIAI February news"**Previous message:**Maru Dubshinki: "Re: Fundamental problems"**In reply to:**Marc Geddes: "RE: Fundamental problems"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT
*