Hi, > > My contention is that the incremental approach will take > unacceptably long > > to generate the compounds needed to solve nontrivially complex practical > > problems. > > We don't have to start from atoms --- most compounds in our mind are > obtained through interaction with other people. We just build upon them. I > don't think it is realistic to build an AI system to generate > compound terms > with arbitrary complexity.
I agree that we build up compounds hierarchically, building new ones from old; and also that we get some compounds via learning from other people. And of course, generating new compound terms with arbitrary complexity is unrealistic. Thus the hierarchy heuristic -- there is a low bound on the complexity of new compound terms the mind can discover, so the mind has to build new terms from previously learned ones, etc. However, I don't think this bound is QUITE so low that it can be met by purely incremental learning methods... > You assume that only the best result matters, and the bad ones don't hurt. > It is not always the case. If I'm going to make decisions about > my life, I'd > rather have ten average ones, but not a perfect and nine terribly > bad ones. Hmmm... Pei, maybe this personality difference explains why my life has been considerably more dramatic than yours!!! ;-) > > I think this aspect of NARS is like a kind of stochastic hill-climbing. > > Because I think NARS is not going to keep (P AND Q) in its active memory > > very long if it's not judged as "good" by the system. Is it? How does > > NARS, in the current conception, decide what to keep around and what not > > to? > > What am I misunderstanding here? > > You are close --- under resources restriction, the system has to omit > certain possibilities, which is the case for Novamente, too. The > difference > is just to decide what to omit. In NARS, the decision is experience based. > No doubt many good opportunities are lost, but unless we assume we somehow > know the future, I don't think we can avoid that. In Novamente, the decision is also experience based. As I said in my other email, evolutionary learning is just a particular form of experience-based learning. The question is not whether learning is experience-based, but rather, how cleverly one takes account of experience! -- Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
