RE: Fundamental problems

From: H C (
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 10:15:43 MST

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.


>From: Marc Geddes <>
>Subject: RE: Fundamental problems
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:21:05 +1100 (EST)
>--- H C <> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > 'Probability Theory : The Logic of Science' by E. T.
> > Jaynes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > hegem0n
> >
> >
>Um, 'Uncommon Priors Require Origin Disputes' by
>Robin Hanson
>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
>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:
>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
>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.

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