>
> 4. http://www.ontotext.com/inference/reasoning_strategies.html
> "* Forward-chaining: to start from the known facts and to perform
> the inference in an inductive fashion. This kind of reasoning can have
> diverse objectives, for instance: to compute the inferred closure; to
> answer a part
Abram,
Thanks, for the info. The concept that the only purpose of backward
chaining to find appropriate forward chaining paths, is an important
clarification of my understanding.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:
"Am I correct in this interpretation of what Abram said, and is that
interpretation included in what your Google clippings indicate is the
generally understood meaning of the term backward chaining.
Ed Porter"
It sounds to me like you are interpreting me correctly.
One important note. Lukasz quot
Jim, Sorry. Obviously I did not understand you. Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:33 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
Ed Port
Lukasz,
Your post below was great.
Your clippings from Google confirm much of the understanding that Abram
Demski was helping me reach yesterday.
In one of his posts Abram was discussing my prior statement that top-down
activation could be either forward or backward chaining. He said "
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I hope
I didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of
reasoning has been conflated with the terms "forward-cha
2008/7/14 Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Will,
>
> --- On Fri, 7/11/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Purpose and goal are not intrinsic to systems.
>
> I agree this is true with designed systems.
And I would also say of evolved systems. My fingers purpose could
equally wel
Ed Porter said:
You imply you have been able to accomplish a somewhat
similar implicit representation of bindings in a much higher
dimensional and presumably large semantic space. Unfortunately I was
unable to understand from your description how you claimed to have
accomplished this.
-
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The terms "forward-chaining" and "backward-chaining" when used to refer to
> reasoning strategies have absolutely nothing to do with temporal
> dependencies or levels of reasoning. These two terms refer simply, and
> only
