Mike,
If memory serves, this thread started out as a discussion about binding in an
AGI context. At some point, the terms forward-chaining and
backward-chaining were brought up and, then, got used in a weird way (I
thought) as the discussion turned to temporal dependencies and hierarchical
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I
hope I didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm
sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of
reasoning has been
For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Loosemore in that your
first description was a bit ambiguous, and it sounded like you were
saying that backward chaining would add facts to the knowledge base,
which would be wrong. But you've cleared up the ambiguity.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:02 AM,
The way I see it, on the expert systems front, bayesian networks
replaced the algorithms being currently discussed. These are more
flexible, since they are probabilistic, and also have associated
learning algorithms. For nonprobabilistic systems, the resolution
algorithm is more generally
Abram Demski wrote:
For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Loosemore in that your
first description was a bit ambiguous, and it sounded like you were
saying that backward chaining would add facts to the knowledge base,
which would be wrong. But you've cleared up the ambiguity.
I concur: I
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I hope I
didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of reasoning
has been conflated with the terms forward-chaining (FWC) and
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The terms forward-chaining and backward-chaining when used to refer to
reasoning strategies have absolutely nothing to do with temporal
dependencies or levels of reasoning. These two terms refer simply, and
only, to the
Ed Porter said:
You imply you have been able to accomplish a somewhat
similar implicit representation of bindings in a much higher
dimensional and presumably large semantic space. Unfortunately I was
unable to understand from your description how you claimed to have
accomplished this.
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I hope
I didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of
reasoning has been conflated with the terms
Lukasz,
Your post below was great.
Your clippings from Google confirm much of the understanding that Abram
Demski was helping me reach yesterday.
In one of his posts Abram was discussing my prior statement that top-down
activation could be either forward or backward chaining. He said
Jim, Sorry. Obviously I did not understand you. Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:33 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY THE
BINDING PROBLEM?
Ed
Am I correct in this interpretation of what Abram said, and is that
interpretation included in what your Google clippings indicate is the
generally understood meaning of the term backward chaining.
Ed Porter
It sounds to me like you are interpreting me correctly.
One important note. Lukasz
Abram,
Thanks, for the info. The concept that the only purpose of backward
chaining to find appropriate forward chaining paths, is an important
clarification of my understanding.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008
4. http://www.ontotext.com/inference/reasoning_strategies.html
* Forward-chaining: to start from the known facts and to perform
the inference in an inductive fashion. This kind of reasoning can have
diverse objectives, for instance: to compute the inferred closure; to
answer a particular
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
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
Jim,
Thanks for your questions.
Ben Goertzel is coming out with a book on Novamente soon and I assume it
will have a lot of good things to say on the topics you have mentioned.
Below are some of my comments
Ed Porter
JIM BROMER WROTE===
Can you describe some of
Richard,
I think Wikipedia's definition of forward chaining (copied below) agrees
with my stated understanding as to what forward chaining means, i.e.,
reasoning from the if (i.e., conditions) to the then (i.e.,
consequences) in if-then statements.
So, once again there is an indication you
Jim,
In my prior posts I have listed some of the limitations of Shruiti. The
lack of generalized generalizational and compositional hierarchies directly
relates to the problems of learning from experience generalized rules that
derived from learning in complex environements when the surface
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
I think Wikipedia's definition of forward chaining (copied below) agrees
with my stated understanding as to what forward chaining means, i.e.,
reasoning from the if (i.e., conditions) to the then (i.e.,
consequences) in if-then statements.
So, once again there is
Ed Porter said:
It should be noted that Shruiti uses a mix of forward changing and backward
chaining, with an architecture for controlling when and how each is used.
...
My understanding that forward reasoning is reasoning from conditions to
consequences, and backward reasoning is the opposite.
#ED PORTERS CURRENT RESPONSE
Forward and backward chaining are not hacks. They has been two of the most
commonly and often successfully techniques in AI search for at least 30
years. They are not some sort of wave of the hand. They are much more
concretely grounded in
Jim Bromer wrote:
#ED PORTERS CURRENT RESPONSE
Forward and backward chaining are not hacks. They has been two of the
most
commonly and often successfully techniques in AI search for at least 30
years. They are not some sort of wave of the hand. They are much more
Ed Porter wrote:
Ed Porter wrote:
## RICHARD LOOSEMORE LAST EMAIL #
My preliminary response to your suggestion that other Shastri papers
do
describe ways to make binding happen correctly is as follows: anyone
can suggest ways that *might* cause correct binding to occur -
## RICHARD LOOSEMORE WROTE #
Now I must repeat what I said before about some (perhaps many?) claimed
solutions to the binding problem: these claimed solutions often
establish the *mechanism* by which a connection could be established IF
THE TWO ITEMS WANT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
=FROM ED'S ORIGINAL POST=
it is precisely because the human brains can do such massive searches
(averaging roughly 3 to 300 trillion/second in the cortex alone) that lets
us so often come up with the appropriate memory or reason at the appropriate
time.
==
Ed Porter wrote:
## RICHARD LOOSEMORE WROTE #
Now I must repeat what I said before about some (perhaps many?) claimed
solutions to the binding problem: these claimed solutions often
establish the *mechanism* by which a connection could be established IF
THE TWO ITEMS WANT TO
Ed Porter wrote:
WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY THE BINDING PROBLEM?
Here is an important practical, conceptual problem I am having trouble
with.
In an article entitled “Are Cortical Models Really Bound by the ‘Binding
Problem’? ” Tomaso Poggio’s group at MIT takes
In general I agree with Richard Loosemore's reply.
Also, I think that it is not surprising that the approaches referred
to (gen/comp hierarchies, Hinton's hierarchies, hierarchical-temporal
memory, and many similar approaches) become too large if we try to use
them for more than the first few
WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY THE BINDING PROBLEM?
Here is an important practical, conceptual problem I am having trouble with.
In an article entitled Are Cortical Models Really Bound by the 'Binding
Problem'? Tomaso Poggio's group at MIT takes the position that there
45 matches
Mail list logo
