Ben, Many thanks for refs. and detailed reply. Much appreciated and v. interesting.
After reading around this area, and cog sci re analogy, here are my v. cursory - & as usual tendentious - impressions (so blitz me down). Basically, my ideas about the importance of sensory/visual graphics and images for both analogy and AGI were enriched but not fundamentally changed. 1) Formal ("Literate") Analogy - nearly all the science seems to be about analogies using formal sign systems, esp. language. But as Gentner acknowledges, there is little work re 2) Informal ("Pre-Literate") Analogy (esp animals but also pos. infants) - which has to be primary. That worm working out that many different-shaped objects would stop up his burrow, was using analogy - i.e. saying in effect: "these objects are loosely shaped like/ will fit into, that hole." Ditto the bird that fashions a hook to manipulate objects. But I don't see symbols playing any part in their (evolutionarily primary) analogical reasoning. 3) Structural Mapping - the research seems to concentrate mainly on mapping sets of symbolic relationships, and that means depending on one-to-one, identical elements to draw analogies (whereas sensory/ visual mapping/analogy is not at all so constrained), and ... 4) Symbolically-Derived Analogies are largely trivial (!) - that's my definitely cursory conclusion, but I'm betting that none of the computational systems so far have produced any striking analogies. It all seems to be about simple numerical, alphabetic and verbal/logical analogies, Can you give instances of any interesting analogical results here either from computers or ordinary human intelligence that show any promise for adaptive intelligence? (First impressions of Gentner and Hofstadter's work here - not impressed). 5)Striking analogies seem to be all Sensory/visual derived - all the classic sci. discovery examples used, eg Kepler, Kekule, Duncker all seem to me obviously derived by way of sensory/visual graphics/images not symbols. Reading through the rich Indurkhya book, all the metaphors listed (that I've read so far) seem to me similarly derived. "Skies crying" (rain- tears) etc do not seem to be in any way symbolically derived. 6)Any Visual Analogy Computers? - a)can any computers draw visual analogies? - e.g can any do what a human can do - think of a fortress tower/turret and quickly (as I did) come up with loose sensory analogies: "fork", "teeth (with gaps)" "fingers" ? b)can any digital computers truly map, period? - put one shape on top of another and see immediately that they fit exactly/loosely, (without first breaking them down into bits/formulae?) - or would it take an analogical computer to do this? c)has anyone incorporated in their AI/AGI system, as my ideas suggest they should, a cartoon unit and a movie unit, for the purposes of reasoning? (I'm still not sure re yours). 7)Facility of Analog Retrieval: "What is more difficult is: Given a large body of knowledge, fish out the analogies that are going to be relevant and useful (because there are VERY many possible analogies, and most will be very dumb)" a) off the top of my head - I wonder whether any sensorily derived analogies are dumb? Not-so-great like my turret analogies, but still relevant, legitimate. - precisely because they literally fit. b) much more importantly - you may be asking for the impossible - analog retrieval, it seems to me, is fundamentally a RISKY, UNCERTAIN business - hit-and-miss search. Creatives get paid many thousands of dollars to sit around for weeks and come up with new analogies to "Coke (whatever product) is as refreshing as..." And that process is very laborious. With lots of trite, non-strking analogies coming up and long pauses. The adaptive drawing of sensory analogies is fundamentally an adventurous exploration, because you are trying to connect up domains that have never been connected before. There is no formula for it by definition or guarantee that it will work. Perhaps if we ever do have truly superintelligent robots, they will be able to do it all much faster, (although by then we may link into their brains), but they will still be engaged in uncertain exploration with no definable time period Only just beginning to get into this! But better stop there. Thanks again P.S. If interested, can send copy of Grounding Cognition, ed D Pecher, R Zwaan, C.U.P. - v. recent sci research which tends, broadly, to support my ideas.. ----- Original Message ----- From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [agi] All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain Mike Tintner, Firstly, to ground your discussion of analogy in the AI field, you might like to look at "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" by Douglas Hofstadter and "Metaphor and Cognition" by Bipin Indurkhya, online at http://www.iiit.ac.in/~bipin/ Like many natural language words, "analogy" is a bit ambiguous.... It can be used to refer to low-level inference operations like the example Pei gave... Or, it can be used to refer to higher-level processes that involve loads of low-level coordinated inference operations... say "This dog is attacking me... how can I get rid of it? Well, when the rabbit was attacking me, I got rid of it by attracting a cat, which scared away the rabbit. Analogously, maybe I could get rid of the dog by finding something to scare it away.... Hmm... what about that lion who lives next door. 'Hey Mr. Lion! Come over to play!' " The above analogy can be broken down into a series of low-level inference steps, including among them some that match the simple logical form that Pei called "analogy" in his example. Doing so, as a human, is just a simple textbook exercise... The drawing of analogies, given an appropriate selection of a small amount of relevant knowledge, is not an incredibly hard problem... What is more difficult is: Given a large body of knowledge, fish out the analogies that are going to be relevant and useful (because there are VERY many possible analogies, and most will be very dumb). But this is really just the "uncertain inference control" and "attention allocation" problem in general, not a specific problem to do with analogies. Unlike Tintner, I don't see why analogy has to be visual, though it can be. The scientific study of analogy in cog sci suggests that some analogies are visually grounded but many are not. -- Ben On 5/12/07, Richard Loosemore < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pei Wang wrote: > 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. Hmmmm.... But do you think this captures *all* of the idea of what "analogy" is the human case? Most of it? How would you say that this squared with Hofstadter's ideas about what analogy might be? Looking for a relation between X and Y is all very well, but one of the things that DRH is fond of telling us is that not just any old relation will do. And if there are a (quasi-)infinite number of possible relations between X and Y, doesn't the selection of the appropriate one become the heart of the analogy process, rather than just a subsidiary step? (In just the same way that reasoning systems in general need to have an inference control mechanism that, in practice, determines how the system actually behaves)? What I am getting at here is that I think the concept of an "analogy mechanism" has not even become clear yet, and so for some people to say that they believe that their systems already have a kind of analogy mechanism is to jump the gun a little. In my system, all relationships can be "opened up" by being operated on, but there is no fixed class of operators that does the job: instead they are built on the fly, in a manner that is sensitive to context. So the nature of X, Y and also Z will be able to have a diffuse effect on the operator construction process that is trying to find a good relationship between X and Y. The process of "finding" an operator can have general meta-operators that govern how the process happens (in other words there can be "general, analogy-finding strategies"). Those meta-operators could be called the thing that "is" the analogy mechanism, but that would be an oversimplification. Richard Loosemore. ----- 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/?& ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/?& ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/800 - Release Date: 11/05/2007 19:34 ----- 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