Oh, I see, I must be talking about URE then. All cool, then it seems reasonable to me (one ring to rule them all - policy).
I keep persuading myself that a perfect single declarative - logic + lambda calculus + type theory exists, or could be invented, and that it should be consisted only of bare Turing complete declarative minimum such that everything else could be programming within it. I don't mean to criticize, you are doing just fine with OpenCog, I mean there are tangible results, but as screwed as I am, I always tend for perfection and I sometimes don't realize that inventing should be stopped at some point, or the product would never see the light of the day. What I occasionally see in OpenCog is that specifically AtomSpace is a place for an improvement, but what I don't realize that often what I have in mind is not a part of already accessible technologies, and it has to be explained, programmed, and proven effective to actually make a point in advancing OpenCog. The thing is that our work is overlapping largely in area covered by AtomSpace. The difference is that in my development, I strive for a knowledge base language that is meant to unite all the scientific knowledge under one umbrella, possibly distributed over web, but aware of member theory web displacements. Because of this overlapping, I occasionally ask questions here in a hope for a piece of mind that is hard to get anywhere else. I imagined an AtomSpace equivalent that is equally suitable for machine and human use, and I run for it big time for a long time now. So I kindly ask to excuse my, sometimes silly remarks, as I hope we could contribute each other's work. Sincerely, - Ivan V. - ned, 9. pro 2018. u 18:00 Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> napisao je: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:37 AM Ivan Vodišek <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > I don't know, I never understood why is PLN defined at low level in > OpenCog. Sure it's a cool asset, to know probability and confidence of any > formula (not to degrade it, PLN surely does have a deal of scientific > value), but why low level if AtomSpace is Turing complete. Starting from > observation of natural general intelligence in humans, we don't have that > specific probability feedback when we are thinking about something. But > that doesn't mean we can't calculate it on our own, once we receive an > interest stimulus about probability. > > > > I'm not sure at what sense PLN is "low level" in the software sense? > Software-wise PLN is one among many rule-systems definable using > Atomspace and executable using URE rule engine... it doesn't have a > distinguished position. The special truth-values used by PLN are a > special case of general Values associated with Atoms etc. > > Conceptually PLN was part of the cognitive architecture design that > led to the creation of OpenCog framework in the first place. But in > terms of the actual software architecture of the framework PLN doesn't > have any distinguished role... > > > > For example, if it is about natural language and resolving ambiguities, > it could still be done by keeping a sum type in relevant position inside > syntax tree that can be analyzed and decided afterwards, again using some > non-low-level AtomSpace constructs, even possibly a PLN itself defined in a > terms of AtomSpace. > > PLN rules are defined in terms of Atomspace > > PLN truth value formulas are defined as external functions wrapped in > GroundedSchemaNodes, but that's a temporary efficiency optimization... > which could also be done for any other rule-set btw... > > 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/CACYTDBeAQdQOOb1ytnSfcC323a3%3DiL%2BddBHyUywM2OfYZi2FjQ%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/CAB5%3Dj6XJ9R0tkHbvq4EvXZQcBFd4eQVkAw-GjJNEm22USM8DSA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
