Inductive Knowledge Paradox

In the new inductive mystery of Nelson Goodman, questions about inductive knowledge were raised and a series of possible solutions were proposed. The paradox of inductive knowledge was misunderstood as the fundamental ideology of relativism proposed by Quine and other philosophers, such as contemporary thinkers, but outlined in the solution proposed by Hempel and this paper The new version presents another case. About acquiring knowledge

Russell and Norvig refer to knowledge sources as an induction method including a method of extracting knowledge from observation. Inductive is a scientific principle, a general theory of knowledge creation. With sufficient data, if you have enough data, you can learn all the knowledge and excellent behavior that the system needs to demonstrate autonomously. After countless hype and disappointment, practical considerations became dominant. Acquiring knowledge flexibly and efficiently and overcoming "bottleneck of knowledge" is an important issue.

Many people ignore this problem as it is clear how knowledge is generated. We will learn from observation. This is called inductive reasoning, or simply inductive. We observed several phenomena and came up with the general principles to form a theory. If all the crows you observe are black, you can conclude that all crows are black. Over time, more black crows support your theory. Even though it is intuitive, simple, irresistible, most people have the answer. In 1950, Alan Turing wrote a very foresight essay about AI. I think whether the machine can think about it. You may be familiar with the discussion of that Turing test. But the most promising thing about this paper is how does Turing provide a comprehensive and long-term overview of major opposition to the feasibility of artificial intelligence and the direction in which the problem is explored I think there is something.