wantstojoinin

• wantstojoinin 9 May 2012 9:53 UTC

  3 points

  on: Con­se­quen­tial­ist For­mal Systems

  Why isn’t building a decision theory equivalent to building a whole AI from scratch?

• wantstojoinin 1 May 2012 2:56 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: gRR’s comment on: Log­i­cal Uncer­tainty as Probability

  I understand, what I wrote was wrong. What if we use n%3=0 and ~(n%3=0) though?

• wantstojoinin 30 Apr 2012 9:06 UTC

  0 points

  on: Log­i­cal Uncer­tainty as Probability

  A natural number n can be even or odd: i.e. n%2=0 or n%2=1.

  If X = {n is natural number} then you showed that we can use P(n%2=0|X) + P(n%2=1|X) = 1 and P(n%2=0|X) = P(n%2=1|X) together to get P(n%2=0|X) = ¹⁄₂.

  The same logic works for the three statements n%3=0,n%3=1,n%3=2 to give us P(n%3=0|X) = P(n%3=1|X) = P(n%3=2|X) = ¹⁄₃.

  But then the same logic also works for the two indistinguishable statements n%3=0,n%3=1 \/​ n%3=2 to give us P(n%3=0|X) = P(n%3=1 \/​ n%3=2) = ¹⁄₂.

  But ¹⁄₂ = ¹⁄₃ is a contradiction, so we find that axiom 3 leads to inconsistencies.

• wantstojoinin 17 Mar 2012 22:07 UTC

  0 points

  on: “Nice Guys Finish First”—Youtube Video of se­lected read­ing (by Dawk­ins) from The Selfish Gene

  Isn’t it just strategy stealing? Calling it tit-for-tat maybe focuses away from the fundamental reason why it wins.

• wantstojoinin 11 Mar 2012 12:19 UTC

  3 points

  on: Any­one have any ques­tions for David Chalmers?

  I’d like to ask him for an explanation of what the hard problem is and why it’s an actual problem, in a way that I can understand it (without reference to undefinable things like “qualia” or “subjective experience”). Would probably have to discuss it in person with him and even then doubt either of us would get anywhere though.