Ben,
On 06/18/2016 09:15 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
ContextAnchorNode "123"
EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
ContextAnchorNode "123"
Inheritance Ben sane
is another way... We could also do
Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
Inheritance Ben sane
I suppose...
No, this wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to express that Jane
thinks that Ben is sane without overwriting Bob's believe.
What Amen suggested yesterday is that
ContextLink <0>
SatisfyingSet
EvaluationLink
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
$X
Inheritance Ben sane
would have the same meaning.
No, it wouldn't, for the reason I explained (the domain of X is not
compatible with that idea). But I think I know how to express that, will
write an email about it.
The idea, informally put, is that
"Bob thinks Ben is insane"
means
" (The Ben in Bob's thoughts) has the property of (insanity as
understood in Bob's thoughts)"
Agreed, another way to put it is that Bob sees the universe as harboring
an insane Ben.
So getting back to the other example...
These 2 representations are equivalent indeed, but they certainly are
not equivalent to
ContextLink
SatisfyingSet
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
As this would supposedly (which I'm not even sure) be equivalent to
(according to http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/ContextLink#Definition)
Evaluation
eat@456
List
And Ben <Aaron-hopes>
And lunch <Aaron-hopes>
Wouldn't it be
Evaluation
And eat@456 <Aaron-hopes>
List
And Ben <Aaron-hopes>
And lunch <Aaron-hopes>
meaning that if we restrict attention to things as they exist in the
alternate universe consisting of what Aaron hopes for, then we are
looking at "Ben eats lunch" in its restricted existence within this
alternate universe...
You're correct, in the idea, in the formalism I think we need another
construct.
In general, if one has
R( (ContextAnchorNode [1]) )
EmbeddedTruthValueLink <s>
ContextAnchorNode [1]
L
where R is any logical relationship and L is any Atom
then the meaning is that, within the (fuzzy) scope of things that satisfy
R($x)
the truth value of L is <s>
So then, this seems equivalent to
ContextLink <s>
SatisfyingSet
R
L
-- at least this was Amen's idea, which makes sense to me at the moment...
I agree with this, except that again the domains need to intersect, and
in these examples it's not really at all.
More later,
Nil
-- Ben
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Nil Geisweiller
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/17/2016 03:24 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
I read a whole page. But I don't understand, what is the domain of
SatisfyingSet
$X
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
?
I mean what are the $Xs?
They are relationship
But relationship of what exactly? Representing what Aaron hopes?
But then why do you use a ContextLink? Wouldn't that be instead
MemberLink
SatisfyingSet
$X
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
Or
Inheritance
SetLink
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
SatisfyingSet
$X
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Aren't these forms equivalent?
These 2 representations are equivalent indeed, but they certainly are not
equivalent to
ContextLink
SatisfyingSet
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
As this would supposedly (which I'm not even sure) be equivalent to
(according to
http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/ContextLink#Definition)
Evaluation
eat@456
List
And Ben <Aaron-hopes>
And lunch <Aaron-hopes>
where <Aaron-hopes> is SatisfyingSet Evaluation hope ...
But then I'm failing to see what would be the intersection of Ben and
<Aaron-hopes> (as well as lunch and <Aaron-hopes>) if the <Aaron-hopes> are
things like
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
it really makes no sense.
What would make sense would be to consider as domain something like all
possible traces of the universe (maybe traces of atomspaces or something
like that) and consider that Ben at a certain time T is a certain subset of
these traces (where the pattern corresponding to Ben is present at Time T in
these traces, so (AtTime T Ben) is a random variable with is true only if a
certain trace happens to contain Ben's pattern at time T). And <Aaron-hopes>
is another subset of traces corresponding to everything that Aaron hopes
will happen at time T. Then we can intersect them.
That is why I'm asking what is $X is <Aaron-hopes>.
Of course in this way of doing things we would rarely use EvaluationLink at
all, instead we would mostly use Inheritance or Implication, because you
cannot possibly enumerate potentially infinitely long traces.
However EvaluationLink would still be useful when the system is operating at
a higher level of thought, somewhat possibly disconnected from the sensors,
but that could be reconnected via bridge knowledge.
So I suppose what we want is to connect linguistic semantics (where the
domain is ???) with experiential semantics (where the domain is traces of
the universe). Or perhaps we want to bypass this experiential semantics
(though when OpenPsi need to take a decision, it really needs a way or
another to get back to this experimential semantics). So I'm really
confused. Do we want relex2logic to be the linguistic->experiential bridge?
Or does relex2logic is supposed to do something else?
Nil
ben
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/5768D586.1000300%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
