Once again: let me reiterate: I believe that using DefineLink for this kind of data prepresentation is an abuse, and it will only lead to trouble and heart-ache down the road. Please use EquivalenceLink instead. That link type was designed and intended for what you are trying to do here.
The DefineLink was designed for a very different use case -- its for beta reduction and not for knowledge representation (KR). Your biology application is a KR problem, it is NOT a beta reduction problem. You are trying to define a KR (knowledge representation) structure for biological knowledge. The EuqivalenceLink is a KR link. The defineLink is a beta-reduction link. Just don't use it! --linas On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Michael Duncan <mjsdun...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi linus, finally getting back to this knowledge representation discussion. > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:25:07 AM UTC+8, linas wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Michael Duncan <mjsd...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> thanks for the feedback, linus! i copied the form using DefineLink and >>> AndLink from the wiki >>> >> >> Do you know where in the wiki it says this? >> >> >>> because it was the closest example i could find to what i was trying to >>> do. i'm happy to implement pathways using your formalism. >>> >> > this was my starting point (from http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DefineLink): > ... > Examples DefinedPredicateNode > > The following uses DefineLink to define a DefinedPredicateNode > <http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DefinedPredicateNode> > > DefineLink > DefinedPredicateNode <http://wiki.opencog.org/w/DefinedPredicateNode> > "MyPredicate" > AndLink <http://wiki.opencog.org/w/AndLink> > > ... > i wanted a predicate defined over an arbitrarily long list of links between > proteinNodes to represent a pathway that is probabilistically true based the > truth value of the links "anded" together. > > For plain-old knowledge representation, you probably should be using >> EquivalenceLink, instead of DefineLink. DfineLink is imperative, while >> EquivalenceLink is declarative. >> >> So, for example: when you say "A is the same as B" that is a declaration >> that A is equivalent to B. This is an EquivalenceLink. >> >> When you say "A is the name of B", and then later say "do something with >> A" that is an imperative command to actually do something with B. That is, >> replace A by B immediately, and do something with B. This an imperative >> command, This is the DefineLink. its a definition, kind-of-like in a >> dictionary. >> >> Thus, both DefineLink and EquivalenceLink are a certain kind of equality; >> but DefineLink is was invented to make it easier for humans to write code >> in atomese, while EquivalenceLink was designed to be used by PLN and other >> reasoning subsystems. EquivelanceLink declares knowledge. Since you are >> not hand-crafting code in atomese, there is really no valid reason for you >> to use DefineLink. >> >> >> >>> one thing i don't understand from your explanation is that you first say >>> the PredicateNode can be used instead of DefinedPredicateNode but then use >>> both in your proposed implementation. can you elaborate further on why >>> your proposal is optimal? >>> >> >> DefinedPredicateNode is simply a hack to make it easier for the pattern >> matcher to look up the definition. Since you are not writing >> pattern-matcher rules, there's no reason for you to use it. >> > > well i'm using scheme code to construct an atomese representation that i > want to use as a knowledge base for PLN queries. in it's current toy state > the only real function the DefinedPredicateNode is serving is a flag to > pick out pathways since those are the only DPNs in the atomspace so i am > using it as a hack! > > >> >> also, what are the options for scheme functions to invoke all the members >>> of one of the resulting DefinedPredicateNodes? >>> >> >> I don't understand the question. First, one cannot "invoke" an atom. >> Second, neither PredicateNodes nor DefinedPredicateNodes have "members". >> Finally, you should try to avoid or minimize the writing or creation of >> "scheme functions"; you should design your data so that either PLN, or the >> pattern matcher, or the pattern miner, or the rule engine can work with it >> directly. Writing new code by hand, whether in C++, scheme or python, is >> best done to create generic data processing subsystems, instead of >> hand-tailloring something for your particular dataset. There are >> exceptions to this rule, but these should be avoided. >> > > so if i use your pathway contruction: > > MemberLink > DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" > Predicate "protein relationship 1" > >> ProteinNode "x" >> ProteinNode "y" >> > > > > MemberLink > DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" > >> Predicate "protein relationship 2" >> ProteinNode "y" >> ProteinNode "z" >> .... >> > > what i mean by "invoke" is just how do i access the members of the pathway > DPN to apply them to ProteinNodes and their interaction predicates in a > particular context? > > >>> mike >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-7, linas wrote: >>>> >>>> Quick comment, I did not review the Doc. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Michael Duncan <mjsd...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the pathway links are predicates defined here >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_AiCCRuWKI92JUCYXJRnKeYw-MiwKLR3kr9fJyYZfs/edit>. >>>>> the pathways are >>>>> >>>>> DefineLink >>>>> >>>> >>>> I strongly urge that EquivalenceLink be used here, and not DefineLink. >>>> DefineLink is meant for something else. >>>> >>>> >>>>> DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" >>>>> >>>> Isn't an ordinary Predicatenode enough?? >>>> >>>> >>>>> AndLink >>>>> >>>> >>>> Again: the anlink is completely unordered, so in this case, would be >>>> exactly the same thing as a SetLink: its just a collection of "stuff" (a >>>> collection of protein relationships, it seems) Because its not ordered, >>>> its not a "path" per se, its just a set. >>>> >>>> You keep saying that you use AndLink because its "true" when everything >>>> is in it, but that is also the case for SetLink. When I say "x and y are >>>> in set A", that always true that x is in A and Y is in A, and you don't >>>> need an AndLink to say this. The SetLink is enough. The SetLink is >>>> effectively an AndLink, from the truthiness of it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Predicate "protein relationship 1" >>>>> ProteinNode "x" >>>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>>> Predicate "protein relationship 2" >>>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>>> ProteinNode "z" >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm proposing this: >>>> >>>> MemberLink >>>> DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" >>>> Predicate "protein relationship 1" >>>> >>>>> ProteinNode "x" >>>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MemberLink >>>> DefinedPredicateNode "GO pathway term name" >>>> >>>>> Predicate "protein relationship 2" >>>>> ProteinNode "y" >>>>> ProteinNode "z" >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --linas >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:00:54 AM UTC-7, Michael Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> the AndLink semantics are for the simplified pathway representation >>>>>> for the current demo/toy bio-atomspace which only has binary links >>>>>> between >>>>>> proteins and abstracts out small molecules. so the pathway for the krebs >>>>>> cycle for instance is just directed links between the enzymes: ... -> >>>>>> isocitrate >>>>>> dehydrogenase -> alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase -> Succinyl-CoA >>>>>> synthetase -> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> linus semantics look good for when the complete biopax pathway >>>>>> representation is translated into atomese. >>>>>> >>>>>> even then my intuition is that the AndLink semantics should be useful >>>>>> in pln inference about say the likelihood of a pathway being involved in >>>>>> distinguishing a case-control phenotype based on moses models of relative >>>>>> gene expression levels. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-7, Ben Goertzel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a pathway in biology is actually a network with directed arrows and >>>>>>> generally lots of loops.... there are even some hyperlinks e.g. for >>>>>>> catalysis... a pathway is a subhypergraph... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2017 11:25, "Linas Vepstas" <linasv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> no clue why its appropriate for biological pathways. Mike is >>>>>>>> designing that, not me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, a "pathway" is an ordered sequence where the ordering >>>>>>>> matters. Neither SetLink, nor AndLink are ordered. So if you actually >>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>> to have a path, i.e. a sequence of directed arrows, well .. you need >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> find a representation of biological pathways as directed arrows. But >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> is familiar ground, for opencog... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --linas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK I get that... but I don't see why it is appropriate for >>>>>>>>> biological >>>>>>>>> pathways... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Linas Vepstas <linasv...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > First, lets review SetLink: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > SetLink >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "x" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "y" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > EquivalenceLink >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > SetLink >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "x" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "y" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "x" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "y" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Again, with TV's: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink <1.0> >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "z" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink <0.9> >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "w" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink <0.8> >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "s" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > MemberLink <0.2> >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "m" >>>>>>>>> > ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet" >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Sooo .. AndMemberLink would be just like the above, except that >>>>>>>>> whereever >>>>>>>>> > you see SetLink above, you would have AndLink, and wherever you >>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>> > MmeberLink above, you would have AndMemeberLink. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > --linas >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> I don't understand the proposed semantics of AndMemberLink, >>>>>>>>> could you >>>>>>>>> >> explain? >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Michael Duncan < >>>>>>>>> mjsd...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> > i actually think an AndLink-like semantics better fits >>>>>>>>> biochemical >>>>>>>>> >> > pathways >>>>>>>>> >> > at a computationally tractable level than partitions in that >>>>>>>>> below the >>>>>>>>> >> > level >>>>>>>>> >> > of a whole organism, where one pathway ends and another >>>>>>>>> begins is >>>>>>>>> >> > largely >>>>>>>>> >> > arbitrary. also, if one link is missing then the whole >>>>>>>>> thing doesn't >>>>>>>>> >> > work >>>>>>>>> >> > but the last bit of a dead end might be the start of another >>>>>>>>> path that >>>>>>>>> >> > goes >>>>>>>>> >> > to the same place, more like words and phrases that can be >>>>>>>>> rearranged >>>>>>>>> >> > and >>>>>>>>> >> > swapped in different ways to say the same thing. linus idea >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> >> > AndMemberLinks and OrMemeberLinks would get around the size >>>>>>>>> limitation >>>>>>>>> >> > and >>>>>>>>> >> > also seem like they would be useful for reasoning on moses >>>>>>>>> models. >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:55:16 PM UTC-4, linas wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> Hi Ben, Mike, >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Ben Goertzel < >>>>>>>>> b...@goertzel.org> >>>>>>>>> >> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> Some interesting representational issues have come up in >>>>>>>>> the context >>>>>>>>> >> >>> of Atomspace representation of pathways, which appear to >>>>>>>>> have more >>>>>>>>> >> >>> general implications… >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> It seems the semantics we want for a biological pathway is >>>>>>>>> sort of >>>>>>>>> >> >>> like “the pathway P is a set of relationships R1, R2, …, >>>>>>>>> R20” in kinda >>>>>>>>> >> >>> the same sense that “the human body is a set of organs: >>>>>>>>> brain, heart, >>>>>>>>> >> >>> lungs, legs, etc.” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> First of all it seems what we have here is a part of >>>>>>>>> relationship… >>>>>>>>> >> >>> maybe >>>>>>>>> >> >>> we want >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “heart” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> and >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship< >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >pathway< >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartLink and PartOfLink have come and gone in >>>>>>>>> >> >>> OpenCog/Novamente/Webmind history... >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> An argument that PartLink should have fundamental status >>>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>>> >> >>> well-defined fuzzy truth value is given in this paper: >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> https://www.academia.edu/1016959/Fuzzy_mereology >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> However what we need for biological pathways and human >>>>>>>>> bodies seems >>>>>>>>> >> >>> like a bit more. We want to say that a human body >>>>>>>>> consists of a >>>>>>>>> >> >>> certain set of parts... not just that each of them is a >>>>>>>>> part... We're >>>>>>>>> >> >>> doing a decomposition. >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> One way to do this would be >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ListLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “legs” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “arms” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “brain” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> etc. >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> Relatedly, we could also have >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> As mentioned earlier, there are several problems with this >>>>>>>>> format. One >>>>>>>>> >> >> is >>>>>>>>> >> >> the "oops I forgot to mention xyz in the list" or "gosh I >>>>>>>>> should have >>>>>>>>> >> >> left >>>>>>>>> >> >> out pqr" and this becomes a big problem: you have to delete >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> >> >> PartitionLink, delete the ListLink, create a new list and >>>>>>>>> partition. >>>>>>>>> >> >> In the >>>>>>>>> >> >> meanwhile, some other subsystem might be holding a handle to >>>>>>>>> the old, >>>>>>>>> >> >> now-wrong PartitionLink, and there is no effective way of >>>>>>>>> announcing >>>>>>>>> >> >> "hey >>>>>>>>> >> >> stop using that old thing, get my new thing now". >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> A second problem is that the above doesn't have anywhere to >>>>>>>>> hang >>>>>>>>> >> >> addtional >>>>>>>>> >> >> data: e.g. "legs are a big part of the human body, having a >>>>>>>>> mas of >>>>>>>>> >> >> nearly >>>>>>>>> >> >> half of the body." You can't just slap that on as a >>>>>>>>> (truth)value, cause >>>>>>>>> >> >> there's no where to put that value. >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> Third problem is that large list-links are hard to handle in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> >> >> pattern >>>>>>>>> >> >> matcher. Its much much harder to write a query of the form >>>>>>>>> "find me >>>>>>>>> >> >> all >>>>>>>>> >> >> values of $X where >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> PartitionLink >>>>>>>>> >> >> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>>> >> >> ListLink >>>>>>>>> >> >> ConceptNode “legs” >>>>>>>>> >> >> VariableNode “$X” >>>>>>>>> >> >> ConceptNode “brain” >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> because, ... well the ListLink is an ordrerd link, not an >>>>>>>>> unordered >>>>>>>>> >> >> link. >>>>>>>>> >> >> If you forget to include the pqr (added above) then the >>>>>>>>> search will >>>>>>>>> >> >> fail. >>>>>>>>> >> >> You could try to use unordered links and globnodes, but >>>>>>>>> these lead to >>>>>>>>> >> >> other >>>>>>>>> >> >> difficulties, including the n! possible permutations of an >>>>>>>>> unordered >>>>>>>>> >> >> link >>>>>>>>> >> >> become large n-factorial large when the unordered link has n >>>>>>>>> items in >>>>>>>>> >> >> it. >>>>>>>>> >> >> Recall that old factorial-70 trick used to make calculators >>>>>>>>> overflow. >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> In general, any link with more than 3 or 4 or 5 items in it >>>>>>>>> is bad >>>>>>>>> >> >> news. >>>>>>>>> >> >> This is a generic statement about knowledge representation >>>>>>>>> in opencog. >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> OverlappingPartitionLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> C >>>>>>>>> >> >>> L >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> if we want to encompass cases where the partition elements >>>>>>>>> in L can >>>>>>>>> >> >>> overlap; or >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> CoveringLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> C >>>>>>>>> >> >>> L >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> if we want to encompass cases where the partition elements >>>>>>>>> in L can >>>>>>>>> >> >>> overlap, AND the elements in L may encompass some stuff >>>>>>>>> that’s not in >>>>>>>>> >> >>> C >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> For the pathway case, we could then say >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “Krebs cycle” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ListLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 1< >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 2< >>>>>>>>> >> >>> etc. >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> Now this solves the semantics problem but doesn’t solve the >>>>>>>>> problem of >>>>>>>>> >> >>> having a long ListLink…. A biological pathway might have >>>>>>>>> 100s or >>>>>>>>> >> >>> 1000s of relationships in it, and we don't usually want to >>>>>>>>> make lists >>>>>>>>> >> >>> that big in the Atomspace... >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> To solve this we could do something like (for the human >>>>>>>>> body case) >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “human-body” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “body-partition-1” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “body-partition-1" >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “legs” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “body-partition-1" >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “arms” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> etc. >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> and similarly (for the biological pathway case) >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ConceptNode “Krebs cycle” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1" >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 1< >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink >>>>>>>>> >> >>> PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1” >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >relationship 2< >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> Yeah, sure. Not sure why the existing MemberLink is not >>>>>>>>> sufficient for >>>>>>>>> >> >> your purposes. The MemberLink has reasonably-well-defined >>>>>>>>> semantics, >>>>>>>>> >> >> there >>>>>>>>> >> >> are already rules for handling it in PLN (or there will be >>>>>>>>> rules -- I >>>>>>>>> >> >> think >>>>>>>>> >> >> its something Nil has thought about) I'm not clear on why >>>>>>>>> you'd want >>>>>>>>> >> >> to >>>>>>>>> >> >> invent something that is just like MemberLink but is >>>>>>>>> different. >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> ... >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> There could be some nice truth value math regarding these, >>>>>>>>> e.g. we >>>>>>>>> >> >>> could introduce Ellerman's "logical entropy" which is >>>>>>>>> really a >>>>>>>>> >> >>> partition entropy. There are also connections with some >>>>>>>>> recent >>>>>>>>> >> >>> theoretical work I've been doing on "graphtropy" (using >>>>>>>>> "distinction >>>>>>>>> >> >>> graphs" that generalize partitions), which I'll post a >>>>>>>>> paper on >>>>>>>>> >> >>> sometime in the next week or two.... But that will be >>>>>>>>> another email >>>>>>>>> >> >>> for another day... >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> Yeah graphical-entropy is something that I keep trying to >>>>>>>>> work on, >>>>>>>>> >> >> except >>>>>>>>> >> >> that every new urgent disaster of the day distracts me from >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> --linas >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> -- 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 opencog+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> >> > To post to this group, send email to ope...@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/e1df7273-da14-45f5 >>>>>>>>> -8d0d-5ebad0d31217%40googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>>>> >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>>>>>>>> >> http://goertzel.org >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I >>>>>>>>> am the >>>>>>>>> >> boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>>>>>>>> http://goertzel.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> *"The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and >> take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the >> problem is that it's too stupid and already has." * >> > -- > 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/b413685a-5d9a-45f4-879f-5647e67d3f5e%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/b413685a-5d9a-45f4-879f-5647e67d3f5e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- *"The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the problem is that it's too stupid and already has." * -- 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/CAHrUA3642g75wfUGjLkCKn06QtpsEx11f%2BE%2BtV40%2BstFbX1T2g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
