On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:50:02 PM UTC+8, Nil wrote:
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... Hi Nil, What do you mean by, "... domains need to intersect, and in these examples it's not really at all. "? I mean what are the domains? More later, Nil > > -- Ben > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Nil Geisweiller > <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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/b7bfb53a-162d-4c13-8908-eb6d0ae5f140%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
