Hi Ben, 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" > [...] > > We used to deal with this by having truth value versions in Composite > TruthValue, but Linas got rid of CompositeTV some time ago... Well, but only under the understanding that it is completely identical using the ContextLinks. CompositeTruthValue was a premature optimization that caused techical problems; however, it does not affect the semantics of the atoms, because it was supposed to be *identical* to using the ContextLinks > > > What Amen suggested yesterday is that > ContextLink <0> > SatisfyingSet > EvaluationLink > PredicateNode "thinks" > ConceptNode "Bob" > $X > Inheritance Ben sane > What Amen suggested yesterday appears to be identical to what has been on that wiki page for almost 2 years. This is not new. > > 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)" > Yes, that's the goal of what was written on that wiki page. "Linas hoped that the wiki page correctly described such relationships" > > > 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 > $X > Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch > > As this would supposedly (which I'm not even sure) be equivalent to > (according to > http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/ContextLink#Definition) > > Evaluation > eat@456 > List > And Ben <Aaron-hopes> > And lunch <Aaron-hopes> > > > Wouldn't it be > > Evaluation > And eat@456 <Aaron-hopes> > List > And Ben <Aaron-hopes> > And lunch <Aaron-hopes> > > > meaning that if we restrict attention to things as they exist in the > alternate universe consisting of what Aaron hopes for, then we are > looking at "Ben eats lunch" in its restricted existence within this > alternate universe... > Yes, but I think Nil's point was that the AndLinks there are quite awkward. In order for the And Ben <Aaron-hopes> to make sense, we have to think of Concept Ben as being not just the Ben of the physical universe, but also the Ben in everyone's hopes and dreams which makes Concept Ben unweildy and large somehow. Funny thing is, when Nil said "it doesn't make sense", I agreed with him, at that time. But now that I read the above, it doesn't seem so bad. At least for the two nouns. The verb of Aaron's hopes still seems awkward, because verbs don't exists as things (by definition - if its a thing, its a noun). > > In general, if one has > > > R( (ContextAnchorNode [1]) ) > > EmbeddedTruthValueLink <s> > ContextAnchorNode [1] > L > > where R is any logical relationship and L is any Atom > The notation above is a bit queer, given previous notation, but I think I get what you're trying to say. > > then the meaning is that, within the (fuzzy) scope of things that satisfy > > R($x) > > the truth value of L is <s> > right. > > So then, this seems equivalent to > > ContextLink <s> > SatisfyingSet > R > L > right. > > > -- at least this was Amen's idea, which makes sense to me at the moment... > well, its not just Amen's idea -- its what the wiki page said since Sept 2014, when you and Aaron and I and Amen and others hammered it out in a long set of emails. --linas > -- Ben > > > > 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? > > > > -- 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/CAHrUA34%3DXwsQwbOYSDjQhAJkscJbYwmJ3_T8jiPOwJprsz63zQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
