Continuing. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:44 AM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog < [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. > Yep. It makes no sense. There seem to be two ways out: 1) don't use context link for this case. 2) don't define context link the way that its defined on that wiki page. > > 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. > well the reason i keep saying "kripke frame" and "mini universe" is that, what matters is not the time-T, but rather a more abstract concept of time: the number of steps taken in some forward-chaining inference. So, Aaron is thinking this, and then that, and then something else, and then he thinks about Ben eating lunch. What matters here is the chain of thoughts that got to Aaron's current mental state, and not the physical time in the universe. Another point is that the chain of thoughts that Aaron is having is different from the chain of thoughts that Nil is having. I was hoping that these mini-universes that exist on our heads were "contexts" but you seem to have demonstrated that the current definition of contexts is not right for this situation. > > 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). Well, even for sensors, one has different kripke frames. for example "I heard something go boom, but did not see anything happen" -- in the sensory frame of hearing, there's a certain truth, but in the sensory frame of sight, there is not. Lets try that, using MemberLink MemberLink SatisfyingSet $X Evaluation hearing-sensor-left-side Me-myself-I $X Evaluation sound@456 loud Is that OK? Something like that? I don't know what you mean by "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. Not sure what you mean here. What does "get back to experiential semantics" mean? > Do we want relex2logic to be the linguistic->experiential bridge? Not quite sure what you mean, here, but after using R2L to parse voice commands that tell the robot to do something, it didn't work very well. I had to fall back to pre-R2L raw data to get things to work reliably. I also struggled to deal with "grounded knowledge" -- knowledge about how to move arms, make facial expressions, and relate that to the words being said. So, for this R2L fell far short, and something much more needs to be done. I've got only vague mutalble ideas at the moment, and a working prototype, but that's all. > Or does relex2logic is supposed to do something else? > convert only some (but not all) sentences into a classical-logic form, suitable for reasoning? I say "not all" because many sentences don't seem to fit into the strictures of classical logic. (poetry, for example -- e.g. Feng Tang's recent translations of Rabindranath Tagore. . Heh) --linas > > 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/5763FED7.20201%40gmail.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/CAHrUA37FVjvDF0GEFPXAik9TG8b9z0-Rj8OSQd544ZP46zBv3A%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
