Richard,
You just keep digging yourself in deeper.
Look at the original email in which you said This is not correct. The
only quoted text that precedes it is quoted from me. So why are you saying
Jim's statement was a misunderstanding?
Furthermore, I think your criticisms of my statements are
Anyone who reads this thread will know who was being honest and
reasonable
and who was not.
The question is not honest and reasonable but factually correct . . . .
The following statement of yours
In this case it becomes unclear which side is the if clause, and which
the then clause, and,
Mark,
Since your attack on my statement below is based on nothing but conclusory
statements and contains neither reasoning or evidence to support them, there
is little in your below email to respond to other than your personal spleen.
You have said my statement which your email quotes is simply
Ed,
Take the statements
IF it croaks, THEN it is a frog.
IF it is a frog, THEN it is green.
Given an additional statement that it croaks, forward-chaining says that
it is green. There is nothing temporal involved.
- OR -
Given an additional statement that it is green,
It is true that Mark Waser did not provide much justification, but I
think he is right. The if-then rules involved in forward/backward
chaining do not need to be causal, or temporal. A mutual implication
is still treaded differently by forward chaining and backward
chaining, so it does not cause
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
You just keep digging yourself in deeper.
Look at the original email in which you said This is not correct. The
only quoted text that precedes it is quoted from me. So why are you saying
Jim's statement was a misunderstanding?
Okay, looks like some confusion here:
Response to Abram Demski message of Monday, July 14, 2008 10:59 AM
Abram It is true that Mark Waser did not provide much
justification, but I
think he is right. The if-then rules involved in forward/backward
chaining do not need to be causal, or temporal.
[Ed Porter] I
I started reading a Riesenhuber and Poggio paper and there are some
similarities to ideas that I have considered although my ideas were explicitly
developed about computer programs that would use symbolic information and are
not neural theories. It is interesting that Risesnhuber and Poggio
Mark,
Still fails to deal with what I was discussing. I will leave it up to you
to figure out why.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:54 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL
With regard to your comments below, I don't think you have to be too
imaginative to think of how the direction of forward or backward chaining
across at least certain sets of rules could be reversed. Abram Demski's
recent post gave an example of how both what he considers forward and
backward
Ed Porter wrote:
I am I correct that you are implying the distinction is independent
of direction, but instead is something like this: forward chaining
infers from information you have to implications you don't yet have,
and backward chaining infers from patterns you are interested in to
ones
A tangential comment here. Looking at this and other related threads I can't
help thinking: jeez, here are you guys still endlessly arguing about the
simplest of syllogisms, seemingly unable to progress beyond them. (Don't you
ever have that feeling?) My impression is that the fault lies with
Still fails to deal with what I was discussing. I will leave it up to
you
to figure out why.
Last refuge when you realize you're wrong, huh?
I ask a *very* clear question in an attempt to move forward (i.e. How do you
see temporal criteria as being related to my example?) and I get this You
Abram Demski wrote below: If the network is passing down an expectation
based on other data, informing the lower network of what to expect, then
this is forward chaining. But if the signal is not an expectation, but more
like a query pay attention to data that might conform/contradict this
Will,
--- On Fri, 7/11/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Purpose and goal are not intrinsic to systems.
I agree this is true with designed systems. The designed system is ultimately
an extension of the designer's mind, wherein lies the purpose. Of course, as
you note, the system
Jim,
In the Riesenhuber and Poggio paper the binding that were handled implicitly
involved spatial relationships, such as an observed roughly horizontal line
substantially touching an observed roughly vertical line at their respective
ends, even though their might be other horizontal and
Mike Tintner wrote:
A tangential comment here. Looking at this and other related threads I
can't help thinking: jeez, here are you guys still endlessly arguing
about the simplest of syllogisms, seemingly unable to progress beyond
them. (Don't you ever have that feeling?) My impression is that
I'm not questioning logic's elegance, merely its relevance - the intention
is at some point to apply it to the real world in your various systems, no?
Yet there seems to be such a lot of argument and confusion about the most
basic of terms, when you begin to do that. That elegance seems to come
18 matches
Mail list logo
