Amen, Here is a quick write-up of the idea regarding surprisingness I mentioned at the office today...

## Advertising

Suppose we have an Atom-expression without variables, and want to evaluate its surprisingness. Or, suppose we have an expression with variables, but want to evaluate its surprisingness with respect to the constant terms it contains. Some examples of such expressions would be 1) Inheritance Amen man 2) Inheritance Amen smokes 3) AND Inheritance Amen man Inheritance Amen genius 4) AND Inheritance Amen $X Inheritance Ben $X EvaluationLink PredicateNode “understands” ConceptNode “Bob” VariableNode $X 5) Inheritance Amen Amen I suggest that one way to evaluate the surprisingness in such a case is: For each constant term T (or in general, each combination of terms) in the expression: — create a modified version of the expression, in which that term (or term-set) T is replaced with a variable V_T — determine an appropriate context C_T for V_T — calculate the surprisingness of the expression’s truth-value relative to C_T for V_T The surprisingness of the expression can then be evaluated as the sum of the surprisingness values for the terms. So, if there is any term for which “templatizing” on that term (replacing that term with a variable) produces surprisingness, the expression as a whole is considered surprising to a certain degree. For instance Inheritance Amen smokes could be modified into Inheritance $V_Amen smokes and if the context for $V_Amen is chosen as Human, then the surprisingness would be calculated by comparing the truth value of Inheritance Amen smokes to that of Inheritance Human smokes By this method Inheritance Amen smokes becomes evaluated as more surprising than Inheritance Amen man On the other hand, Inheritance Amen Amen is evaluated as completely unsurprising, no matter what the context, because for any context the truth value of Inheritance $V_Amen $V_Amen is 1, which is the same as the truth value of Inheritance Amen Amen Example 4) above can be used to illustrate the more advanced case mentioned above, in which one templatizes sets of terms rather than individual terms. One could look at AND Inheritance $V_Amen $X Inheritance $V_Ben $X EvaluationLink PredicateNode “understands” ConceptNode “Bob” VariableNode $X and then consider the context for the pair ($V_Amen, $V_Ben) as the pair (Human, Human), i.e. the set of pairs of humans. For a first application it will be OK to just templatize individual terms. Templatizing sets of terms, however, is necessary to deal with expressions that are only surprising in terms of the way they interrelate two terms in respect to their relationship with other terms. -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org “I tell my students, when you go to these meetings, see what direction everyone is headed, so you can go in the opposite direction. Don’t polish the brass on the bandwagon.” – V. S. Ramachandran -- 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 opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. 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/CACYTDBfiwPzDiBM00vE43mN%3DyZ6194X%3D3q0zaj%2B%2BT_3o-9NP%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.