And one final hopefully short comment: > NARS, SOAR, ACT-R
I want to draw a few more distinctions. First, "classic" OpenCog is (was?) a theory of mind or a theory of cognition (a "cognitive model"?), having more than a few similarities to the above systems. This "classic" OpenCog is described in several books by Goertzel et al, and assorted papers, conference proceedings, etc. Assorted variants of it were built. All of these incarnations of OpenCog were built on a generic infrastructure, the "Atomspace". The AtomSpace is meant to provide an "easy-to-use" base on which different cognitive theories can be created, explored, developed. It tries to be impartial, providing a collection of tinker-toy parts which you can assemble yourself, or extend, implement, re-implement as needed to pursue any one particular theory or vision of what cognition is. Because we've turned the crank on this 3 or 4 or 5 times, the lower layers have gotten fairly generic, and are debugged, stable, performance-optimized and can support the weight of more complex devices to be built on top of them. The exploration of higher layers continues unabated. Most of what you abstracted about NARS, SOAR, ACT-R would count as "higher layers". To rephrase: the AtomSpace allows you to "roll your own" temporal logic. I don't care- have at it, use your favorite theory. You mention ACT-R as having declarative, and procedural memory, and ACT-R being a production system. Sure, we can do all three styles in the AtomSpace, simultaneously, on the same data. I don't care: do it however you want. You bolded: At each moment, an internal pattern matcher [in ACT-R] searches for a production that matches the current state of the buffers. Only one such production can be executed at a given moment By contrast, in the AtomSpace, you can run productions one at a time, or in parallel, or distributed across the network. Don't care. Or, instead of productions, you can use term-rewriting, graph rewriting, don't care. The toolset is there. -- Linas On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:50 PM Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > looking like CLIPS a bit to me. > > > And not by accident. There are, however, some deep and fundamental > differences. These are: > > > * The "rules" are kept in a graph database that can be saved to disk in > several formats, saved to SQL, no-SQL, and transmitted by network to other > network nodes. > > > * The graph store is more generic than just "rules", you can store > anything you want in it. It's a generalized KR system. If you don't like > the default KR style, you can invent your own: all knowledge graphs are not > just static graphs, but are also executable, and you get to pick how that's > done. (OK, so if you invent your own, it might not work so well with PLN, > and whatever temporal subsystem gets created. So compatibility is your > responsibility, too.) > > > * Unlike CLIPS (or Prolog) rules/expressions can have more than just > true/false values. They can be given floating-point valuations, for > example, Bayesian probabilities or fuzzy-logic percentages. They can be > given vector-of-floats, e.g. two numbers: probability & confidence. Or a > vector of 653 floats, from some neural net. Or a vector of strings. Or a > nested tree of floats and strings. Or whatever. Each valuation is a generic > key-value DB. And not just only "true/false". > > > The default PLN rules that are CLIPS-like use a blend of probability > theory and fuzzy logic. But again, you don't have to use these, you can > invent your own. > > > -- Linas > > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 6:02 PM Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks everybody for your comments. There is a time philosophy meetup >> event this Sunday, and I put together some very general time notes I >> cobbled together: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_PLknbLKL7ZGEupy6tBQR-J5rkFgt3s-dOHKn4LZKIU/edit?usp=sharing >> Please let me know if further comments. I appreciate your help! >> Mike Archbold >> >> -- >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/55185ace-56c1-4564-8b4a-4d5c175379c9n%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/55185ace-56c1-4564-8b4a-4d5c175379c9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > Patrick: Are they laughing at us? > Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us. > > > -- Patrick: Are they laughing at us? Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA35BPbEy_de-aQcuLztc_VmkDycYEaShjp9mbqCc%3Dqr3uQ%40mail.gmail.com.
