Dennis Gorelik wrote:
Richard,
3) A way to represent things - and in particular, uncertainty - without
getting buried up to the eyeballs in (e.g.) temporal logics that nobody
believes in.
Conceptually the way of representing things is described very well.
It's Neural Network -- set of nodes (concepts), when every node can be
connected with the set of other nodes. Every connection has it's own
weight.
Some nodes are connected with external devices.
For example, one node can be connected with one word in text
dictionary (that is an external device).
Do you see any problems with such architecture?
Many, unfortunately.
Too many to list all of them. A couple are: you need special extra
mechanisms to handle the difference between generic nodes and instance
nodes (in a basic neural net there is no distinction between these two,
so the system cannot represent even the most basic of situations), and
you need extra mechanisms to handle the dynamic creation/assignment of
new nodes, because new things are being experienced all the time.
These extra mechanisms are so important that is arguable that the
behavior of the system is dominated by *them*, not by the mere fact that
the design started out as a neural net.
Having said that, I believe in neural nets as a good conceptual starting
point.
It is just that you need to figure out all that machinery - and no one
has, so there is a "representation" problem in my previous list of problems.
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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72127217-41d988
