I put in a little disclaimer for emphasis *Just to emphasize – the coverage below is uneven and only intended to give a general feel and some links for consideration, and not a critical overview in any way. * On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:26:39 PM UTC-8 Mike Archbold wrote:
> 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/a1d12e14-bb56-4ea4-9361-2f679ef49010n%40googlegroups.com.
