Gahh, Did any of you read anything that is written on the rest of that wiki page?
Amen's suggestion seems to have nothing at all to do with the general problem of representing claims and context, it rather had to do with how to represent time, and as such, we need a seprate wikipage for "how to represent time in opencog". The claims-and-context page already outlines all of the major approaches, and from what I can tell with this email, nothing new is being proposed tthat is not already written down there. Right? Or is something actually new being proposed? (other than how to represent time?) --linas On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Nil, > > The main point here is to be able to refer to the truth values that an > Atom A may hold in various possible worlds, without (as a side effect > of doing this reference) modifying the truth value that A holds in the > Atomspace > > So for instance if we have > > Inheritance Ben sane <.8> > > we still want to be able to say > > "Bob thinks Ben is totally insane" > > but we can't just say > > Evaluation > PredicateNode "thinks" > ConceptNode "Bob" > Inheritance Ben sane <0> > > because the <0> then ends up on the link (Inheritance Ben sane) > > We used to deal with this by having truth value versions in Composite > TruthValue, but Linas got rid of CompositeTV some time ago... so we > need another way... > > One way is to say > > Evaluation > PredicateNode "thinks" > ConceptNode "Bob" > EvaluationLink > PredicateNode "hasTruthValue" > Inheritance Ben sane > TruthValueNode "0" > > > but that seems clunky. Saying > > 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... > > What Amen suggested yesterday is that > > ContextLink <0> > SatisfyingSet > EvaluationLink > PredicateNode "thinks" > ConceptNode "Bob" > $X > Inheritance Ben sane > > would have the same meaning. 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)" > > > 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 > $X > Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch > > As this would supposedly (which I'm not even sure) be equivalent to > (according to > http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/ContextLink#Definition) > > Evaluation > eat@456 > List > And Ben <Aaron-hopes> > And lunch <Aaron-hopes> > > > Wouldn't it be > > Evaluation > And eat@456 <Aaron-hopes> > List > And Ben <Aaron-hopes> > And lunch <Aaron-hopes> > > > meaning that if we restrict attention to things as they exist in the > alternate universe consisting of what Aaron hopes for, then we are > looking at "Ben eats lunch" in its restricted existence within this > alternate universe... > > In general, if one has > > > R( (ContextAnchorNode [1]) ) > > EmbeddedTruthValueLink <s> > ContextAnchorNode [1] > L > > where R is any logical relationship and L is any Atom > > then the meaning is that, within the (fuzzy) scope of things that satisfy > > R($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... > > -- 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 > >> > > > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > Super-benevolent super-intelligence is the thought the Global Brain is > currently struggling to form... > > -- > 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/CACYTDBc_S-3NAxw%3DCs3wUqU9KGGPBOVMhJ2hdEMXEqUZkUp6jw%40mail.gmail.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CAHrUA35TwTs8moMDdupOZMvu_4_j7%2BsVX%3Dz0AyA0kuBxUNrB7w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
