> My big issue is that the system depends on laborious experimentation to
> find stable configurations of local parameters that will get all these
> processes to happen at once.
> the problem is doing that
> whilst simultaneously getting the same mechanisms to handle 30 or 40
> other
> cognitive processes.
I'm confused . . . . Why not have multiple independent instances of the
same
mechanisms with different local parameters for different processes? Once
you uncouple the local parameters from instance to instance, making all
the
processes happen at once should be no more complicated than making them
happen individually in isolation. Or am I misunderstanding you or
missing
something really dumb?
----- Original Message -----
From: <"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@pop.lightlink.com>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] How the Brain Represents Abstract Knowledge
> Russell Wallace wrote:
>> On 6/14/06, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"@pop.lightlink.com
>> <http://pop.lightlink.com>
>> ** <" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"@pop.lightlink.com
>> <http://pop.lightlink.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Russell Wallace wrote:
>> > Has anyone yet made an artificial NN or anything like one
>> handle
>> syntax?
>>
>> Uhhh: did you read my first post on this thread?
>>
>>
>> Yes; you appear to be saying that as far as you know nobody has yet
>> made
>> NNs or similar do syntax, but that's because they went off into the
>> dead
>> end of back propagation, and you believe it should be possible to
>> create
>> something like NNs that do syntax and other such things, but you
>> haven't
>> yet implemented any such. Do I understand you correctly?
>
> Not correct. What I said was that I have not written it up yet. I
> have
> implemented enough of it to show (to my satisfaction) that it can
> handle
> syntax. More importantly, I have developed a formalism (more precisely
> a
> theoretical framework) that shows how to use this NN-like system to
> handle
> a very large array of other cognitive processes, not just syntax.
>
> My big issue is that the system depends on laborious experimentation to
> find stable configurations of local parameters that will get all these
> processes to happen at once. I believe that this has to be done
> empirically, so I am constructing a development environment in order to
> facilitate that empirical process.
>
> I have hesitated to publish the formalism ahead of time because (among
> other things) it depends on a methodological and philosophical approach
> that is so much at odds with the status quo that I have no desire (or
> at
> least, not much desire... see my contribution to Ben's AGIRI workshop
> ;-) )
> to fight religious battles without the experimental data to back it up.
>
> I say all this because it would be extremely misleading to say that I
> simply "believe it should be possible to create something like NNs that
> do
> syntax and other such things". That makes it sound like I have nothing
> but
> a vague feeling that it ought to work. Getting a molecular system,
> like
> the one I have developed, to handle syntax and yet also have the
> benefits
> of an NN design is relatively straightforward: the problem is doing
> that
> whilst simultaneously getting the same mechanisms to handle 30 or 40
> other
> cognitive processes.
>
> Richard
> Loosemore.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>
>
> -------
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
> subscription,
> please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
