I intend on ignoring Vladimir's remarks about this. Many neural network enthusiasts have expressed hostility toward discussions of logic in regards to AI and I see no reason to let them arbitrarily rule over these discussion groups. And many people have claimed that my messages don't make much sense. One person repeatedly claimed that some of my messages were just "word salad." Thanks for your encouragement.
I have had discussions about GA's, and I feel strongly that they contributed to the conceptual development of AI, but do not feel that they are strong enough for advanced AGI. I tried the DPLL solver a long time ago, and my experience was that it did not work on a lot of interesting logical formulas. And as you say, if there was one general solver, even if it was difficult, a lot of us might try to incorporate it into whatever area of AI that we were interested in. The issue that I am still trying to develop is whether or not a general SAT solver would be useful for AGI. I believe it would be. So I am going to go on with my theory about bounded logical networks. A bounded logical network is a network where simple logical theories, that is logical speculations about the input output environment and about its own 'thinking', could be constructed with hundreds or thousands of variants and interconnections to other bounded logical theories. These theories would not be fully integrated by strong taxonomic logic, so they could be used with inductive learning. Such a system would produce some inconsistencies, but any inductive system can produce inconsistencies. I believe that interconnected logically bounded theories could show both the intuition of network theories, the subtleties and nuances of complex integrated theories, and the strong logical-analytical potential of logical-rational programs. People should also realize that the bounded interconnected logical model could be used with a variety of rational reasoning methods, not just ideative logic. But my personal theories do center around rational ideative reasoning that would, be capable (I believe) of using and learning general reasoning. Now there is one criticism to my opinion about the usefulness of a general SAT solver in this model. That is, since an interconnected bounded logical network model is not a pure fully integrated logical model, then approximations could be used effectively in the model. For instance, if the system was capable of creating bounded logical theories with thousands of interconnections, even if a solution wasn't known, the program could try millions of guesses about the logical relations to see if any worked. These guesses would be simplifications, which would tend toward over-generalization, but whats the problem? The system I have in mind is not purely logical, it is a bounded logical system which could and would contain many inconsistencies anyway. My contention here is that is just the problem that we are faced with today in rational based AGI. They can get so far, but only so far. A theory, with thousands of subtle variations and connections with other theories, that only had one or a few correct solutions would be useful in critical reasoning because these special theories would be critically significant. They would exhibit strong correlations with simple or constrained relations that would be more like experiments that isolated significant factors that can be tested. And these related theories could be examined more effectively using abstraction as well. (There could still be problems with the critical theory since it could contain inconsistencies, but you are going to have that problem with any inductive system.) If you are going to be using a rational-based AGI method, then you are going to want some theories that exhibit critical reasoning. These kinds of theories might turn out to be the keystone in developing more sophisticated models about the world and reevaluating less sophisticated models. Jim Bromer On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:28 PM, David Salamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Jim, > > Glad to hear you're making some headway on such an important and > challenging problem! > > Don't read to much in to Vladimir's response... he's probably just having > a hard day or something :p If it's fair game to talk about all the other > narrow-AI topics on this list, talking about SAT is fair game. > > Although as Vladimir notes we do have some pretty good solutions (two that > are both powerful and easy to understand are: DPLL and WalkSAT [interstingly > this one is by the inventor of the BitTorrent protocol :p]). It is also very > important to remember that those engineering AGIs would actually use SAT > more often given such a solution, so it is very hard to tell all the massive > benefits to the AGI effort (and the rest of humanity) straight off. > > I for one would (pardon my freedom) cream myself with joy to have such a > solver. Additionally my heart goes out to anyone with the drive and skill to > work in areas like the ones you're in, especially one with the rocks to get > up in front of a bunch of atheists and talk about their creator. > > Keep us updated of this and any other AGI related areas of interest (my > brief google stalk turned up your interest in genetic > algorithms/programming, is that related?). > > cheers, > -david salamon > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have made a little progress on my SAT theory. As I said, I believe > > that there is a chance that I might have gotten the word from the Lord on my > > efforts (seriously), although I am not, in any way, saying that either the > > project or the Lord's involvement is a sure thing. So I am partially going > > on faith, but it is not blind faith. I haven't come close to getting > > objective evidence that it will work for all cases, but so far it is acting > > within the range of expectations that I developed based on simulations that > > I created by parts. (These 'simulations' were simple and many done in my > > mind, but some were done with pencil and paper, etc.) I have examined the > > problem in parts, and by looking at the parts with different assumptions and > > examining the problems using positive, critical and alternative theories, I > > have come to the conclusion that it is feasible. It will be a clunker > > though, no question about that. > > > > So anyway, I cannot yet prove my theory, but I cannot disprove it > > either. I have been working on the problem for three years, and I worked on > > it for a few months 20 years ago. But I have been working on this > > current theory since Oct 2007. I have had experiences similar to the those > > that Ben and others have talked about, where I too thought I solved the > > problem only to discover that I hadn't a short time later, but this has been > > going for five months since October, and I am not retracting anything yet. > > > > But the thing that I still want to talk about is whether or not anyone > > will be able to use a polynomial time solution to advantage if indeed I can > > actually do it (as I am starting to believe that I can). An n^4 or n^5 > > solution to SAT does not look so great and even an n^3 solution is a > > clunker. And I also do not believe that strict logic is going work for > > AGI. But even so, I think I would be able to use the theory in AGI because > > I believe it would be useful to use logic in creating theories and > > theoretical models of whatever the program would consider, and even though > > those logical theories would have to be broken up into parts (parts that > > would be interconnected and may overlap) I now suspect that if simple > > logical theories were composed of hundreds of variations they could be used > > more intuitively and more profoundly than if they were constrained to a > > concise statement of only a few logical variables. And an n^3 SAT solver > > can easily handle a few thousand variables; a 2^n solver cannot. > > > > And what most of the readers of my previous message have not realized is > > that a solution to SAT will almost surely have a greater potential effect > > than the solution to the simple problem of SAT. It will be a new way to > > look at logical complexity and it will eventually lead to new ways to handle > > logical problems. Imagining how overlapping interrelated partitions of > > logical theories which can handle up to a few thousand logical variables > > each and which can handle a few thousand logical interconnections between > > those parts I believe that I can see how artficial mind might be both an > > intuitive network device and a strong logical analytical device. > > > > Jim Bromer > > ------------------------------ > > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
