= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
adsenanim comments on Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (145)
Sorry for the delay.
Let’s start a Fire.
The Fire requires 3 things: Air(A), Heat(H) and a Combustible(C) so that:
F == A+H+C.
We know that there are many true statements about F:
F == H+C+A
F == A+H+C
Etc.
Let’s say that these are also true:
F != A+A+A
F != B+A+A
Etc.
We also, because of trial and error, can enumerate the false statements, starting with:
F != A+H+C.
Etc.
Continuing with:
F == A+A+A
Etc.
Now this is where the flip-flop comes in:
The true and false of the basic circuit have an extraordinary amount of combinations for the purposes of making fire.
I came up with this idea not only because people learn games through both negative and positive reinforcement, but that many times we only have a partial picture of the possible combinations for a win.
This is redoubled when we think of thing in terms of arbitrary meanings such as air, heat and combustible.
I still don't understand what the idea is.
The idea is this:
Not only that people can learn as much about a game from losing it as they can from winning it, but that they need to loose in order to learn how to win. The flip-flop acts as a helper in the process of trial and error.
The feedback caused by the wiring of two NOR gates of the flip-flop allow this because the switches are controlled by the true and false sets exclusively; one switch is always associated with the true statements and the other with false.
When we start to learn, all possibilities are indeterminate, they can be either true or false; F == A+A+A is just as valid as F != A+H+C.
The flip-flop becomes sort of an ex post facto method of examining the data of the experience depending on win or loss. With a loss there can be mild sorting of possibilities, but the real sorting comes with comparing wins and losses.
Let me know if how I am representing this idea is to brief, it is still in its infancy, and as I have said elsewhere in my posts, I haven’t read everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Samuel