> In NARS, as I understand it, these heuristics will have to be learned via > NARS higher-order inference applied to Implication relationships and > compound terms related to inference-control primitives and perception and > action primitives. But I'm not confident that NARS contains any mechanisms > adequate to FORM the right compound terms, which may be large and may > not be easily built up from their components in an incremental way (note that > evolutionary learning doesn't need to build things up in an incremental way, > whereas the NARS inference rules do, insofar as I understand them).
Yes, in NARS everything is reasoning. Clearly, evolutionary computing works better on certain tasks, but to me, "intelligence" and "evolution" are two quite different forms of adaptation, and each works under certain assumptions on certain things. For theoretical and practical reasons, I won't mix them together. At the current stage, the integrity and consistency of the system are more important than its problem-solving power. I'll push the core technique of NARS as far as possible, even though I know that it is not the best for every problem. Accroding to my current plan, evolution will get into the picture at a future time, when I have a whole poputation of NARS, each using the same logic, but with different "personality parameters" and innate knowledge. The evolution process can generate new generations of NARS which works better than their parents. Even after this, "intelligence" and "evolution" are still different (though related) --- the former works within a system, the latter works within a species (with generations of systems). Pei ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
