Pei, (Sorry for a long list of questions; maybe I'm trying to see NARS as what it isn't, through lens of my own approach.)
Do you have a high-level description of how statements evolve during learning of complex descriptions, including creation of new subsymbolic terms (compound terms)? Basic rule for evidence-based estimation of implication in NARS seems to be roughly along the lines of term construction in my framework (I think there's much freedom in its choice, do you have other variants of it/justification for current choice relative to other possibilities which is not concerned with applicability to derivation of rules for abduction/induction/etc.?), but I'm not sure about how you handle variations of structures (that is, how does system represents two structures which are similar in some sense and how it extracts the common part from them). It's difficult to see from basic rules if it's not addressed directly. For example, how will it see similarities and differences between 111222333 and 111122223333? Would it enable simple slippage between them? How will it learn these representations? Do you address temporal activation of terms, where term being active is a temporal statement expressed as relative to current moment, and learning of structure results from prolonged cooccurrence of its components? Basic rule seems to require presence of terms at the same time, which for example can't be made neurologically plausible, unless semantics of terms is time-dependent (because neuron only knows that other neurons from which it received input fired some time in the past, and feature/term it represents if it chooses to fire is a statement about features represented by those other fired neurons in the past). Why do you need so many rules? Ultimately all you need are rules for term formation (for which intersection as starting point seems to be enough) and term activation given currently active terms (fluid inference). Is there a basic set which is theoretically sufficient, although probably requires too much indirect support structures (I assume that input/output experience is presented as flat conjunction of active terms)? Why do you need to separately regard operations on terms and statements (and why statements have any significance in themselves, other than specific interpretation of underlying term activation rule)? On 10/10/07, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In NARS, the Deduction/Induction/Abduction trio has (at least) three > different-though-isomorphic forms, one on inheritance, one on > implication, and one mixed. > > For people who don't have access to the book, see > http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.abduction.pdf , though the > symbols used in that paper is slightly different from the current > form. > > Pei -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=52127503-7a35a9
