Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/4/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All understood. Remember, though, that the original reason
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My stock example: planetary motion. Newton (actually Tycho Brahe,
Kepler, et al) observed some global behavior in this system: the orbits
are elliptical and motion follows Kepler's other laws. This corresponds
to
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:06:11AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
In case anyone else wonders about the same question, I will explain why
the Turing machine equivalence has no relevance at all.
Re-read what you wrote, substituting the phrase Turing machine, for
each and
Andrew Babian wrote:
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind. Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for
Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not
interchangeable. Read the derivation of truth tables for abduction and
induction from the semantics of NAL to learn that different ordering
of premises results in different truth values. Thus while both
orderings are applicable, one will
Josh, I have no idea how new the idea is. When Schank was talking about
scripts ...
From the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (p729):
Schemata are the psychological constructs that are postulated to account
for
the molar forms of human generic knowledge. The term *frames*, as
Right. See concrete examples in
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/NARS-Examples-SingleStep.txt
In induction and abduction, S--P and P--S are usually (though not
always) produced in pair, though usually (though not always) with
different truth values, unless the two premises have the same
If you are a machine reasoning from pieces of information you receive in
no particular order how do you know which is the major and which is the
minor premise?
Edward W. Porter
Porter Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So is the following understanding correct?
If you have two statements
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
And assuming you know nothing more about any of the three
terms in both these statements, then
The order here isn't the incoming order of the premises. From
M--S(t1) and M--P(t2), where t1 and t2 are truth values, the rule
produces two symmetric conclusions, and which truth function is called
depends on the subject/predicate order in the conclusion. That is,
S--P will use a function
On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the following understanding correct?
If you have two statements
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
And assuming you know nothing more about any of the three terms in both
these statements, then each of the following would be
On 10/6/07, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is the following understanding correct?
If you have two statements
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
And assuming you know nothing more about any of the three terms in both
Linas Vepstas said:
To amplify: the rules for GoL are simple. The finding what they imply
are not. The rues for gravity are simple. Finding what they impl are
not.
And I would argue that the rules of Friendliness are simple and the finding
what they imply are not.
-
This list is
Thanks.
So as I understand it, whether a premise is major or minor is defined by
its role of its terms relative to a given conconclusion. But the same
premise could play a major role relative to once conclusion and a minor
role relative to another.
Edward W. Porter
Porter Associates
24 String
Great, I look forward to trying this when I get back from a brief
vacation for the holiday weekend.
Edward W. Porter
Porter Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks.
So as I understand it, whether a premise is major or minor is defined by
its role of its terms relative to a given conconclusion. But the same
premise could play a major role relative to once conclusion and a minor
role relative
Andrew Babian said:
Honestly, it seems to me pretty clearly that whatever Richard's thing is
with
complexity being the secret sauce for intelligence and therefore everyone
having it wrong is just foolishness. I've quit paying him any mind.
Everyone
has his own foolishness. We just wait for
Edward W. Porter wrote:
It's also because the average person looses 10 points in IQ between mid
twenties and mid fourties and another ten points between mid fourties and
sixty. (Help! I'am 59.)
But this is just the average. Some people hang on to their marbles as
they age better than
Linas Vepstas wrote:
My objection to economic libertarianism is its lack of discussion of
self-organized criticality. A common example of self-organized
criticality is a sand-pile at the critical point. Adding one grain
of sand can trigger an avalanche, which can be small, or maybe
Does anyone know of any decent estimates of how many scientists are working in
cog-sci related fields, roughly AI, psychology, and neuroscience?
Josh
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
On 10/6/07, a wrote:
I am skeptical that economies follow the self-organized criticality
behavior.
There aren't any examples. Some would cite the Great Depression, but it
was caused by the malinvestment created by Central Banks. e.g. The
Federal Reserve System. See the Austrian Business Cycle
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my use of GoL in the paper I did emphasize the prediction part at
first, but I then went on (immediately) to talk about the problem of
finding hypotheses to test. Crucially, I ask if it is reasonable to
suppose that Conway could have
Richard,
Any problem can be stated as search for results that satisfy given
constraints. What you state here doesn't seem to contradict what I
wrote before. In following paragraph you describe it:
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my use of GoL in the paper I did
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Pearson wrote:
On 05/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have good reason to believe, after studying systems like GoL, that
even if there exists a compact theory that would let us
I am sorry, Mike, I have to give up.
What you say is so far away from what I said in the paper that there is
just no longer any point of contact.
Best wishes,
Richard Loosemore
Mike Dougherty wrote:
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my use of GoL in the paper
Vladimir,
I say the following without meaning to be critical.
In what I wrote yesterday, I was trying to establish the first point in
the sequence of points that make up the argument in my paper.
What is happening, in this discussion, is that you are trying to ask me
to present the entire
On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question for you, Will.
Without loss of generality, I can change my use of Game of Life to a new
system called GoL(-T) which is all of the possible GoL instantiations
EXCEPT the tiny subset that contain Turing Machine
On 10/6/07, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry, Mike, I have to give up.
What you say is so far away from what I said in the paper that there is
just no longer any point of contact.
oh. So we weren't having a discussion. You were having a lecture and
I was missing the
28 matches
Mail list logo
