From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To give a brief answer to one of your questions: analogy is mathematically a matter of finding mappings that match certain constraints. The traditional AI approach to this would be to search the constrained space of mappings using some search heuristic. A complex systems approach is to embed the constraints into a dynamical system and let the dynamical system evolve into a configuration that embodies a mapping matching the constraints. Based on this, it is provable that complex systems methods can solve **any** analogy problem, given appropriate data, and using for example asymmetric Hopfield nets (as described in Amit's book on Attractor Neural Networks back in the 80's). Whether they are the most resource-efficient way to solve such problems is another issue. OpenCog and the NCE seek to hybridize complex-systems methods with probabilistic-logic methods, thus alienating almost everybody ;=> -- Ben G --------------------------
The problem is that you are still missing what should be the main focus of your efforts. It's not whether or not your program does good statistical models, or uses probability nets, or hybrid technology of some sort, or that you have solved some mystery to analogy that was not yet understood. An effective program has to be able to learn how to structure its interrelated and interactive knowledge effectively according to both the meaning of realtively sophisticated linguistic (or linguistic like communication) and to its own experience with other less sophisticated data experiences (like sensory input of various kinds.) The most important thing that is missing is the answer to the question: how does the program learn about ideological structure? If it weren't for ambiguity (in all of its various forms) then this knowledge would be easy for a programmer to acquire through gradual experience. But sophisticated input like language and making sense of less sophisticated input, like simple sensory input, is highly ambiguous and confusing to the AI programmer. It is as if you are revving up the engine and trying to show off by the roar of your engine, the flames and smoke shooting out the exhaust, and the squeals and smoke of your tires burning, but then that is all there is to it. You will just be spinning your wheels until you deal with the problem of ideological structure in the complexity of highly ambiguous content. So far, it seems like very few people have any idea what I am talking about, because they almost never mention the problem as I see it. Very few people have actually responded intelligibly to this kind of criticism, and for those who do, their answer is usually limited to explaining that this is what we are all trying to get at, or that this was done in the old days, and then dropping it. So I will understand if you don't reply to this. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
