In Prologesque syntax, let points be defined as p(X, Y, Z, ...). for all points (X, Y, Z, ...) in that space. For concreteness, let's use
p(X,Y,Z). Now in Prolog, we can use p as a function of X and Y by calling, e.g. p(17, 54, Z) which will return with Z bound to the result. Thinking in terms of circuits, I have a black box with three wires coming out; I apply a voltage to two of them and measure the third. That's the feedforward mode. Now suppose instead of a mere function, I want to implement an FSA. I have m(State,Input,Output,NextState). I give it State and Input and it gives me back Output and NextState. I have to read NextState and call M again, giving it that value as the State argument. I can't simply call m(S,I,O,S) because it would only recognize self-loop states. The key paradigm shift is to the circuit. Now each of the inputs is a time-varying signal and so are the outputs. But now I *can* simply connect the output state signal to the input, because there's an implicit delay along the wire (or in the predicate). And now, bingo, it's a self-running machine. This essentially stepping backward over the gap between cybernetics and algorithmic AI. You specify a circuit; every object is active all the time. Now general, timing dependent circuit design is a God Damned Pain and nobody would do it if they could get the result by instruction sequences (which are dead simple by comparison). But there's a new field of "reactive programming" that imports just enough control from programming languages to the "always active" paradigm that it looks tractable. And it cuts the size of programs in half. Josh On Wednesday 14 March 2007 18:07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > In my thinking I've dropped the neural inspiration and everything is in > > terms of pure math. Each module (probably better drop that term, it's > > ambiguous and confusing: let's use IAM, interpolating associative memory, > > instead), each IAM is simply a relation, a set of points in N-space, with > > an implied surface or manifold stretched between them. If you wire it > > feedforward, it's a function; if you wire it recurrently, it's an FSA or > > even a Hopfield net-like continuous-state automaton. > > I don't yet understand how you get from > > a) a set of points in N-space, to > > b) a feedforward or recurrent function > > (I can think of many ways to do so, but I don't know which you are using.) > > Could you be more explicit? Mathematics is fine... > > thx > ben > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
