How do you define validation?
This thought was inspired by pseudocode.
To me pseudocode is the language of logic.
If evidence is presented to you and presume the evidence is true then it is validate.
If
Evidence is presented to you and presume to be false then it is not validate.
By using the method of pseudocode how do you define validation?
Or again is it just up to interpretation?
To me pseudocode is the language of logic.
If evidence is presented to you and presume the evidence is true then it is validate.
If
Evidence is presented to you and presume to be false then it is not validate.
By using the method of pseudocode how do you define validation?
Or again is it just up to interpretation?
Comments (6)
Good question. I think we achieve validation when some experts or researchers in the same topic or study (for example, the “spectrum of light”, by Isaac Newton) are a great consensus. Most of the thinkers are agree or even perfection the theory itself. This is why somehow we give validity to theories because, it convinced us.
Another good example can be the Holocaust. There are negationism about the topic for some people. Nevertheless, the consensus is huge of validation of how this dark period is proven about their existence.
I don't know about pseudocode, but I do know about propositional logic. In propositional logic a statement is valid if and only if when the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. This is to say that a statement which is valid does not have to necessarily be true. It just means that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true as well. It's really just a test to make sure what you said even makes sense. It is not a test of the truth or falsehood of a claim.
I am sort of pursuing a informal investigation of the conscious mind and what close comparison I can find to use as a reference point.
Aside to the biological, the next best thing is Artificial Intelligence or computer programming
How Metaphysics or psychology may play a important role in creating Artificial Intelligence. Is my belief that logic is not the only driving force that creates consciousness.
Hence why I ask bizarre questions. Is a quest to create the ideal AI to the likeness of humans.
This question how you define validation is one of many bizarre questions in a attempt to categorize each part of consciousness and maybe artificially duplicate it in programming language.
To understand the difference between validation and perception. How would you explain it to a consciousness regardless of form?
In the most elementary level of course, if knowledge is limited.
Definitions of validate:
1. To prove a point. The results of the experiment validate the theory.
2. To endorse (a proposal): The committee is yet to validate the recommendations.
3. To confirm: I'm here to validate the calculations.
My two cents worth.
I agree with your statement, is that ok...
Maybe I jumped the gun with this question because I am trying to articulate a type of expressive solution in the form of computer science.
Your explanation is right but how you express the answer would be lost to an AI and it needs to be broken down in more elementary levels.
Quoting TheMadFool
Example:
The AI will question who are my committee, are they my equal or superior to judge the calculation? What defines them to be my equal or superior?
This may lead to an overload of various other type of questions and answers that will confuse the AI or consciousness.
The priority is not to get the answer but be able to express it in the most simplified form that it becomes universally understandable and communicated.
Your right but not simplified enough.