Pei,
Sorry for delayed reply. I answer point-by-point below.
On 10/11/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basic rule for evidence-based
estimation of implication in NARS seems to be roughly along the lines
of term construction in my framework (I think there's much freedom in
its
About NARS... Nesov/Wang dialogued:
Why do you need so many rules?
I didn't expect so many rules myself at the beginning. I add new rules
only when the existing ones are not enough for a situation. It will be
great if someone can find a simpler design.
I feel that some of complexity
On 10/21/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
Sorry for delayed reply. I answer point-by-point below.
On 10/11/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basic rule for evidence-based
estimation of implication in NARS seems to be roughly along the lines
of term construction
The difference between NARS and PLN has much more to do with their
different semantics, than with their different logical/algebraic
formalism.
For example, according to the semantics of NARS, Bayes rule, with all
of its variants, is deduction. Therefore it is impossible to use on
On 10/21/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between NARS and PLN has much more to do with their
different semantics, than with their different logical/algebraic
formalism.
Sure; in both cases, the algebraic structure of the rules and the
truth-value formulas follow from the
Mike Tintner wrote:
Charles H:as I understand it, this still wouldn't be an AGI, but merely a
categorizer.
That's my understanding too. There does seem to be a general problem
in the field of AGI, distinguishing AGI from narrow AI -
philosophically. In fact, I don't think I've seen any
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 12:36:10PM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote:
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
You REALLY can't do good reasoning using formal logic in natural
language...at least in
Mark Waser wrote:
Thus, as I understand it, one can view all inheritance statements as
indicating the evidence that one instance or category belongs to, and
thus is “a child of” another category, which includes, and thus can be
viewed as “a parent” of the other.
Yes, that is inheritance as Pei
Pei,
(Sorry for a long list of questions; maybe I'm trying to see NARS as
what it isn't, through lens of my own approach.)
Do you have a high-level description of how statements evolve during
learning of complex descriptions, including creation of new
subsymbolic terms (compound terms)? Basic
Charles,
I don't see - no doubt being too stupid - how what you are saying is going
to make a categorizer into more than that - into a system that can, say, go
on to learn various logic's, or how to build a house or other structures or
tell a story - that can be a *general* intelligence.
On 10/10/07, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
(Sorry for a long list of questions; maybe I'm trying to see NARS as
what it isn't, through lens of my own approach.)
Do you have a high-level description of how statements evolve during
learning of complex descriptions, including
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:06:35PM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote:
For me the sticking point was that we were informed that we didn't know
anything about anything outside of the framework presented. We didn't
know what a Fred was, or what a human was, or what an animal was.
?? Well, no. In
Mike Tintner wrote:
Charles,
I don't see - no doubt being too stupid - how what you are saying is
going to make a categorizer into more than that - into a system that
can, say, go on to learn various logic's, or how to build a house or
other structures or tell a story - that can be a
Generally, yes, you know more.
In this particular instance we were told the example was all that was known.
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:06:35PM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote:
For me the sticking point was that we were informed that we didn't know
anything about anything
]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
OK. I've read the paper, and don't see where I've made any errors. It
looks to me as if NARS can be modeled by a prototype based language with
operators
When looking at it through a crisp glass, the relation is a
preorder, not a (partial) order. And priming is essential. For
example, in certain contexts, we think that an animal is a human
(anthropomorphism).
On 10/9/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ack! Let me rephrase. Despite the
AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
I don't believe that this is the case at all. NARS correctly
handles
cases where entities co-occur or where one entity implies another only
due
to other entities/factors. Is an ancestor
RE: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?Thus, as I
understand it, one can view all inheritance statements as indicating the
evidence that one instance or category belongs to, and thus is a child of
another category, which includes, and thus can be viewed as a parent
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:47 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Thus, as I understand it, one can
:12 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Mark,
Thank you for your reply. I just ate a lunch with too much fat (luckily
largely olive oil) in it so, my brain is a little sleepy. If it is not too
much trouble could you please map out the inheritance
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 12:36:10PM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote:
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
You REALLY can't do good reasoning using formal logic in natural
language...at least in English. That's why the
, October 09, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Mark,
Thank you for your reply. I just ate a lunch with too much fat (luckily
largely olive oil) in it so, my brain is a little sleepy. If it is not
too much trouble could you please map out
: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:28 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Most of the discussion I read in Pei's article related to inheritance
relations between terms, that operated
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:46 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
I don't
logic make sense?
I'm sorry . . . . but I don't understand the question . . . .
- Original Message -
From: Edward W. Porter
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Mark Waser
Charles,
I fully understand your response --- it is typical when people
interpret NARS according to their ideas about how a formal logic
should be understood.
But NARS is VERY different. Especially, it uses a special semantics,
which defines truth and meaning in a way that is fundamentally
OK. I've read the paper, and don't see where I've made any errors. It
looks to me as if NARS can be modeled by a prototype based language with
operators for is an ancestor of and is a descendant of. I do have
trouble with the language terms that you use, though admittedly they
appear to be
Charles,
In experience-based learning there are two main problems relating to
knowledge acquisition: you have to come up with hypotheses and you
have to assess their plausibility. Theoretically, you can regard all
hypotheses, but you can't actually do it explicitly because of
combinatorial
Charles,
To be concrete, let me summarize the assumptions in your previous
comments, and briefly explain why they don't apply to NARS.
*. The meaning of Fred is an entity referred to by the term --- in
NARS, the meaning of a term is its relations with other terms
(according to the system's
Charles D. Hixsons post of 10/8/2007 5:50 PM, was quite impressive as a
first reaction upon reading about NARS.
After I first read Pei Wangs A Logic of Categorization, it took me
quite a while to know what I thought of it. It was not until I got
answers to some of my basic questions from Pei
On 10/8/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--(1) How are episodes represented in NARS?
As events --- see http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.roadmap.pdf
, pages 7-8
--(2) How are complex pattern and sets of patterns with many interrelated
elements represented in NARS? (I.e.,
Mike Tintner wrote:
Vladimir: In experience-based learning there are two main problems
relating to
knowledge acquisition: you have to come up with hypotheses and you
have to assess their plausibility. ...you create them based on various
heuristics.
How is this different from narrow AI? It
Charles,
The computational complexity or resources expense of NARS is
another aspect on which this system is fundamentally different from
existing systems. I understand that from the inference rules alone,
people will think it is too expensive to be actually implemented,
simply because there are
Edward W. Porter wrote:
So is the following understanding correct?
If you have two statements
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
And assuming you know nothing more about any of the three
terms in both these
On 10/7/07, Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... logic is unsuited for conversation...
what a great quote
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
Charles,
What you said is correct for most formal logics formulating binary
deduction, using model-theoretic semantics. However, Edward was
talking about the categorical logic of NARS, though he put the
statements in English, and omitted the truth values, which may caused
some misunderstanding.
Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not
interchangeable. Read the derivation of truth tables for abduction and
induction from the semantics of NAL to learn that different ordering
of premises results in different truth values. Thus while both
orderings are applicable, one will
Right. See concrete examples in
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/NARS-Examples-SingleStep.txt
In induction and abduction, S--P and P--S are usually (though not
always) produced in pair, though usually (though not always) with
different truth values, unless the two premises have the same
]
-Original Message-
From: Lukasz Stafiniak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 4:30 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not interchangeable.
Read the derivation
]
-Original Message-
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 7:03 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Right. See concrete examples in
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/NARS-Examples-SingleStep.txt
rules of categorical logic make sense?
Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not interchangeable.
Read the derivation of truth tables for abduction and induction from the
semantics of NAL to learn that different ordering of premises results in
different truth values. Thus while both
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 7:03 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
Right. See concrete examples in
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/NARS
On 10/6/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the following understanding correct?
If you have two statements
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
And assuming you know nothing more about any of the three terms in both
Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 8:20 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense
]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 8:51 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?
On 10/6/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the following understanding correct?
If you
@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make
sense?
Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not
interchangeable. Read the derivation of truth tables for abduction and
induction from the semantics of NAL to learn that different ordering
46 matches
Mail list logo
