Hi All,
Is anyone else here going to WORLDCOMP08? That is in Las Vegas from July
14-17. It would sure be nice to discuss things at talking speed rather than
typing speed.
Steve Richfield
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
Terren,
Remember when I said that a purpose is not the same thing
as a goal?
The purpose that the system might be said to have embedded
is
attempting to maximise a certain signal. This purpose
presupposes no
ontology. The fact that this signal is attached to a human
means the
system as a
I'm considering nonmonotonic reasoning using Bayes net, and got stuck.
There is an example on p483 of J Pearl's 1988 book PRIIS:
Given:
birds can fly
penguins are birds
penguins cannot fly
The desiderata is to conclude that penguins are birds, but penguins
cannot fly.
Pearl translates the KB
YKY,
PLN, like NARS, uses inference trails
Although we have tried omitting them, and found interesting results:
errors do propagate, but not boundlessly, and network truth values are
still meaningful
Loopy Bayes nets basically just live with the circularity and rely
on math properties of the
Will,
--- On Fri, 7/4/08, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the following make sense? The purpose embedded within
the system
will be try and make the system not decrease in its ability
to receive
some abstract number.
The way I connect up the abstract number to the real world
Though there is a loop, YKY's problem not is caused by circular
inference, but by multiple Inheritances, that is, different
inference paths give different conclusions. This is indeed a problem
in Bayes net, and there is no general solution in that theory, except
in special cases.
This problem is
YKY,
I'm not certain this applies directly to your issue, but it's an interesting
paper nonetheless: http://web.mit.edu/cocosci/Papers/nips00.ps.
Cheers,
Brad
YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
I'm considering nonmonotonic reasoning using Bayes net, and got stuck.
There is an example on p483 of J
