On 5/12/07, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a recent interview
(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jan/interview-minsky/) Marvin Minsky
says that one of the key things which an intelligent system ought to
be able to do is reason by analogy.
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances
like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
Which made me wonder, can Novamente, NARS or any other prospective AGI
system do this kind of reasoning?
In a broad sense, almost all inference in NARS is analogy --- in a
term logic, each statements indicates the possibility of one term
being used (in certain way) as another, and inference on these
statements builds new "can be used as" relations (which technically
are called inheritance, similarity, etc) among terms.
In a narrow sense, NARS has an analogy rule which takes "X and Y are
similar" and "X has property P" as premises to derive a conclusion "Y
has property P" (premises and conclusions are all true to various
degrees). See http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/NARS-Examples-SingleStep.txt
for concrete examples by searching for "analogy" in the file.
For the analogy with the form "X:Y = Z:?", NARS needs more than one
step. It first looks for a relation between X and Y, then looks for
Z's "image" under the relation.
Pei
-----
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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
