The distinction between object-level and meta-level knowledge is very clear in NARS, though I won't push this issue any further.
However, I do want to know your answer to my other question, which I repeat in the following: >> if the only domain knowledge PLN has is >> >> > Ben is an author of a book on AGI <tv1> >> > This dude is an author of a book on AGI <tv2> >> >> and >> >> > Ben is odd <tv1> >> > This dude is odd <tv2> >> >> Will the system derives anything? > > Yes, via making default assumptions about node probability... Then what are the conclusions, with their truth-values, in each of the two cases? Pei On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> > I mean assumptions like "symmetric treatment of intension and >> > extension", >> > which are technical mathematical assumptions... >> >> But they are still not assumptions about domain knowledge, like node >> probability. > > > Well, in PLN the balance between intensional and extensional knowledge is > calculated based on domain knowledge, in each case... > > So, from a PLN view, this symmetry assumption of NARS's **is** effectively > an assumption about domain knowledge > > What constitutes domain knowledge, versus an a priori assumption, is > not very clear really... the distinction seems to be theory-laden and > dependent on the semantics of the inference system in question... > > ben g > > ________________________________ > agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
