I think this is interesting but I have a number of comments. (1) Just fyi, last week or the week before on this list there was discussion of a Sussman essay on robust computation. (Google "Sussman essay on robust computation" and I bet you'll find it.) Since then, I have discussed it with him in person. He is proposing schemes by which programs can be robust-- extend to handle circumstances not previously forseen. He advocates some specific procedure, the details of which I have not yet looked at, he references some of his former students' papers that I have yet to look at, by which different modules would adaptively discover different languages to converse in. At the least this avoids your comment (maybe in a previous post) that you otherwise need to provide n**2 languages for n modules to communicate.
(2) In any language, the words are going to have to invoke some stored and possibly fairly complex code. In C, for example, instructions will have to invoke some programs in machine language etc. In English, I think the words must be labels for quite complex modules. The word "word", for example, must invoke some considerable object useful for doing computations concerning words. In this view, language can do a very powerful thing: by sending the labels of a number of powerful modules, I send a program, so you can more or less run the same program, thus perceiving more or less the same thought. This picture also, to my mind, explains metaphor-- when you "spend" time you invoke a "spend" object/method within valuable resource management (or at the least an instance of it created in your time understanding program). However, I don't understand how smaller modules within the brain or mind could communicate like this, in English. The module that deals with the word ``word" for example, in order to deal with a sentence including lots of other words, would have to invoke the other modules themselves. This is discussed at more length in my book What is Thought?, if memory serves in Ch. 13. If you can propose a solution to this, I would be most interested. (3) Cassimatis has another interesting proposal. He proposes that all modules (at some high level of granularity) must support a stipulated interlingua. They take requests in this interlingua, perhaps translate them into internal language, do computations, and then return results in the interlingua. It is the responsibility of the module designer (or presumably module creation algorithm) to produce a module supporting the interlingua. David> I think that our minds have many systems that, at least at the David> higher levels, have different data representations. These David> systems in our minds seem to communicate with each other in David> words. The words aren't totally appropriate in all domains David> (like Math) but they do to communicate the big ideas. Could David> Math be done using English only and no Math symbols? Possibly, David> but I don't think many Mathematicians would want to try it. I David> think that using a common English language interface between David> the larger models is totally feasible and using object David> inheritance, the interface code wouldn't have to be rewritten David> by many modules at all. David> In general, device drivers that work on one version of an OS David> still work on the next one. An exception might be when the OS David> went from 32 to 64 bit operation or from WIN95 to NT. Each David> device driver has a pretty well defined interface and much David> change can occur within that driver without any change to user David> code at all. I wouldn't call this "reinvented all the time" at David> all. David> Relational databases, the clipboard, and the Web all have David> totally different data representations. They are all well David> known and used but totally different none the less. David> In some cases, each of fuzzy logic, Bayesian logic, statistical David> methods, vector arithmetic, neural networks, predicate logic, David> heuristics etc seem to be the best solution but it is easy to David> come up with many examples where each either can't work or David> won't be workable on current hardware. What if you could have David> a system made up of all of these methods where the data David> representation suited the domain and communication was done David> between the modules by using simple English? Like the Math David> example above, you won't necessarily be able to communicate all David> the detail between each module but why do that when each module David> can be it's own "expert". Wouldn't such a system make a lot David> more sense then always trying to fit a square peg into a round David> hole? David> -- David Clark ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell David> Wallace To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 David> 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Logical representation David> On 3/14/07, David Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "an David> AI system consisting of many modules has to have one canonical David> format for representing content" WHY? David> Because for A to talk to B, they have to use a David> language/format/representation that both of them understand. By David> far the most efficient way to achieve this is to decide on a David> single representation. If you do it on an ad hoc basis, N David> modules will require you to either write O(N^2) translation David> routines (not feasible) or abandon general interoperability David> (thereby also abandoning general intelligence). David> In a modern operating system that consists of a huge number David> of component parts, there is no one data representation. David> And the parts mostly don't talk to each other, indeed David> computer scientists have for decades lamented the extent to David> which everything has to be reinvented all the time because we David> can't effectively reuse existing components. The exceptions to David> this e.g. relational databases, the clipboard, the Web, do David> indeed involve agreeing on a single data representation. David> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To David> unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: David> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 David> ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: David> http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your David> options, please go to: David> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC David> "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META David> http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; David> charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1586" David> name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> David> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that our minds have many David> systems that, at least at the higher levels, have different David> data representations. These systems in our minds seem to David> communicate with each other in words. The words aren't David> totally appropriate in all domains (like Math) but they do to David> communicate the big ideas. Could Math be done using David> English only and no Math symbols? Possibly, but I don't David> think many Mathematicians would want to try it.</FONT></DIV> David> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT David> face=Arial size=2>I think that using a common English language David> interface between the larger models is totally feasible and David> using object inheritance, the interface code wouldn't have to David> be rewritten by many modules at all.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT David> face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial David> size=2>In general, device drivers that work on one version of David> an OS still work on the next one. An exception might be David> when the OS went from 32 to 64 bit operation or from WIN95 to David> NT. Each device driver has a pretty well defined David> interface and much change can occur within that driver without David> any change to user code at all. I wouldn't call this David> "reinvented all the time" at all.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT David> face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial David> size=2>Relational databases, the clipboard, and the Web all David> have totally different data representations. They are all David> well known and used but totally different none the David> less.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial David> size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In some David> cases, each of fuzzy logic, Bayesian logic, statistical David> methods, vector arithmetic, neural networks, predicate logic, David> heuristics etc seem to be the best solution but it is easy David> to come up with many examples where each either can't work or David> won't be workable on current hardware. What if you could David> have a system made up of all of these methods where the data David> representation suited the domain and communication was done David> between the modules by using simple English? Like the David> Math example above, you won't necessarily be able to David> communicate all the detail between each module but why do that David> when each module can be it's own "expert". Wouldn't such David> a system make a lot more sense then always trying to fit a David> square peg into a round hole?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT David> face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial David> size=2>-- David Clark</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE David> style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; David> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV David> style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> David> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: David> black"><B>From:</B> <A [EMAIL PROTECTED] David> href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Russell Wallace</A> David> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A David> [EMAIL PROTECTED] David> href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</A> </DIV> David> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 14, David> 2007 1:33 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt David> arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [agi] Logical representation</DIV> David> <DIV><BR></DIV>On 3/14/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>David David> Clark</B> <<A David> href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>> David> wrote: <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE David> class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt David> 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"> <DIV David> bgcolor="#ffffff"> <DIV>"an AI system consisting of many David> modules has to have one canonical format for representing David> content" WHY?</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>Because for A David> to talk to B, they have to use a language/format/representation David> that both of them understand. By far the most efficient way to David> achieve this is to decide on a single representation. If you do David> it on an ad hoc basis, N modules will require you to either David> write O(N^2) translation routines (not feasible) or abandon David> general interoperability (thereby also abandoning general David> intelligence). <BR></DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote David> style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; David> BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"> <DIV David> bgcolor="#ffffff"> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In a modern David> operating system that consists of a huge number of component David> parts, there is no one data David> representation.</FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>And David> the parts mostly don't talk to each other, indeed computer David> scientists have for decades lamented the extent to which David> everything has to be reinvented all the time because we can't David> effectively reuse existing components. The exceptions to this David> e.g. relational databases, the clipboard, the Web, do indeed David> involve agreeing on a single data David> representation.<BR></DIV></DIV> <HR> This list is sponsored by David> AGIRI: <A David> href="http://www.agiri.org/email";>http://www.agiri.org/email</A><BR>To David> unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:<BR><A David> href="http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303";>http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303</A> David> </BLOCKQUOTE><HR /> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: <A David> HREF="http://www.agiri.org/email";>http://www.agiri.org/email</A><BR David> />To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:<BR /><A David> HREF="http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303";>http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303</A> David> </BODY></HTML> ----- 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
