I studied OSCAR years ago, but haven't followed it closely. Simply speaking, both OSCAR and NARS are "logic-based" approaches, and their major difference is that OSCAR stays much closer to traditional mathematical logic (in terms of formal language, semantics, rules, control mechanism, and so on). The logic of OSCAR is similar to nonmonotonic logic --- defeasible, indeed, but doesn't handle learning and revision in general that well.
Pei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:46 AM Subject: [agi] NARS and Oscar [was: Commercial AGI ventures] > > Pei, > > I've been reading thru some of the papers on the OSCAR site, > > > > > http://oscarhome.soc-sci.arizona.edu/ftp/OSCAR-web-page/OSCAR.htm > > > > The general cognitive architecture Pollock proposes there seems reasonable, > although I feel it's very incomplete, focusing exclusively on logical > inference and then inferential procedure learning. To me, his logic-based > learning methods are too "incremental" and "localized" in nature, and I > doubt the system will be capable of creative insights or major leaps of > learning unless it's significantly modified & augmented. For example, for > procedure learning, he basically relies on probabilistic enhancement of > standard goal-regression planning algorithms, and I don't think this kind of > approach is anywhere near adequate.... > > However, there is definitely some unique content here, which lies in the > details of his theory of "defeasible reasoning" [as opposed to deductive > reasoning]. > > I am curious whether you have any thoughts on his defeasible reasoning > approach, and its relation to your own NARS reasoning approach... > > -- Ben > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/ > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/
