Thanks... I will update the notes. The notes are VERY general, just to get a "feel" was my intent, not a criticism or drawing comparisons.... the coverage is uneven. So, I say it's "notes" and it's not proper research... I bolded ACT-R only for emphasis on what sounds like a key feature of the design, not even related to the time. I don't know much ACT-R, which is why I stuck a long description in there. It sounds like you've done a lot of great work on OpenCog.
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-8 linas wrote: > 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/8eada5d7-b03e-42b8-b3bc-c68a16bbff37n%40googlegroups.com.
