3 ms·
AI is an epistemological problem. What stalled AI is the lack of a comprehensive theory of concepts and theory of induction. All the traits cited in the articl
by dmfdmf 15y ago
AI is an epistemological problem. What stalled AI is the lack of a comprehensive theory of concepts and theory of induction. All the traits cited in the article that distinguish us from the animals are derivatives of reason. Whenever these supposed intellectuals get around to realizing this fact they can all eat crow and thank Ayn Rand for solving the problem of concepts and leaving significant clues to the solution to the problem of induction.
- moultano 15y ago>thank Ayn Rand for solving the problem of concepts and leaving significant clues to the solution to the problem of induction. Please explain.
- dmfdmf 15y agoThere are two fundamental epistemological issues with respect to reason. i) how do we form concepts and what (in reality) do they refer to and ii) how do we reason from specific observations to general conclusions and validate our conclusions (i.e. not deduction but induction). Both of these problems were known (and unsolved) by the Greeks. Ayn Rand (in my judgment) solved the first problem, the problem of universals. How do we form concepts (classes) and how are they connected to the actual things subsumed by the concept. Her answer was that concepts are formed on the principle of measurement omission, which means the objects that form a class posses some trait(s) which is present but unspecified. This is what she called the "some but any" principle. She said this is the same principle behind algebra in that a variable "x" represents some quantity but may have any quantity but remains unspecified. She explains all of it in her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" As far as induction, she never tackled that but she did say that she thought the basic principles of induction are probably buried in higher (calculus or above) mathematics. She was being tutored in mathematics at the time of her death, hunting for the principle of induction. In my view the principles of induction can be found in the work of E.T. Jaynes on (Bayesian) probabililty theory and the logic of science. My own view is that AI is stuck because we don't yet have the basic principles of how reason works, so we can't program a computer to do it. N.B. Most people know of Ayn Rand because of her advocacy of selfishness in ethics and capitalism in politics and economics. What they don't realize is that her views in these higher level branches follow from her deep thinking in the more fundamental levels of epistemology and metaphysics.
- Kim1776 15y agoE.T. Jaynes' work on induction entails a subtle fallacy: logic is subordinated to math, effacing logical units and qualitative concepts as a category. See David Harriman's book "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" for the latest on Objectivist induction theory. He explains how it is possible to form a valid generalization from a single instance under certain circumstances, something the frequentist Bayesian approach can't do.
- dmfdmf 15y agoI have not read Harriman's book and don't know Jaynes' work well enough to say whether he inverted the hierarchy but it wouldn't surprise me if he did since he was not an Objectivist nor was he familiar with AR's theory of concepts and other important work. However, I suspect that even if he made such an error it would not invalidate much of what he did achieved. I'm a bit confused by your use of the term "frequentist Bayesian"... Perhaps you meant "something [both] the frequentist [and] Bayesian approach [to statistics] can't do." The Bayesians are opposed to the frequentists and Jaynes was no exception. I think a more important unsolved issue, even for the Bayesians, is how do you get out of probability (as a measure of belief) to 100% certainty (i.e. to truth, 99.9999% probability is not good enough). This is the big kahuna of induction and once we solve that we are off to the races on such things as AI.
- Kim1776 15y agoJaynes' work is valid within limits as a concept of method for some areas of science and engineering. However, his error was in effect trying to replace the logical law of identity with the mathematical law of equivalence, "A is A" becoming only "A = A". In his book, Jaynes says that Aristotelian logic is a special case of probability theory, applicable in a situation where 100% certainty is achieved. This makes all of logic subordinate to a mathematical process, and as such this modeling approach is anti-conceptual. What I meant by "frequentist Bayesian" was the property common to both the frequentist and Bayesian approaches with respect to induction, that being the idea that certainty is in general mathematically established by counting and ratios. That may be the best way to bet sometimes, but it is a fallacy to define logical certainty as such in mathematical terms.
- alnayyir 15y ago>thank Ayn Rand for solving the problem of concepts and leaving significant clues to the solution to the problem of induction. I would also like you to explain.