CogDev is a free 1-day workshop where you can learn about OpenCog and
OpenCogPrime and meet some of the team.
More info at http://opencog.org/wiki/CogDev2008
Signup / Registration Form at
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pT15xTF3ys-1Aola-Yb_UFw
When? Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 10am -
As I understand the way you guys and AI generally work, you create
well-organized spaces which your programs can systematically search for
options. Let's call them nets - which have systematic, well-defined and
orderly-laid-out connections between nodes.
But it seems clear that natural
Brad,
Thanks for the encouragement.
For people who cannot fully grok the discussion from the email alone,
the relevant NARS references are
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.semantics.pdf and
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.confidence.pdf
Pei
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Brad
Pei etc.,
First high level comment here, mostly to the non-Pei audience ... then I'll
respond to some of the details:
This dialogue -- so far -- feels odd to me because I have not been
defending anything special, peculiar or inventive about PLN here.
There are some things about PLN that would
Brad,
But, human intelligence is not the only general intelligence we can imagine
or create. IMHO, we can get to human-beneficial, non-human-like (but,
still, human-inspired) general intelligence much quicker if, at least for
AGI 1.0, we avoid the twin productivity sinks of NLU and
oops, i meant 1895 ... damn that dyslexia ;-) ... though the other way was
funnier, it was less accurate!!
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm only pointing out something everybody here knows full well:
embodiment in various forms has, so far, failed
I'm only pointing out something everybody here knows full well:
embodiment in various forms has, so far, failed to provide any real help in
cracking the NLU problem. Might it in the future? Sure. But the key word
there is might.
To me, you sound like a guy in 1985 saying So far, wings
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
As I understand the way you guys and AI generally work, you create
well-organized spaces which your programs can systematically search for
options. Let's call them nets - which have systematic, well-defined and
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it depends on the semantics. According to model-theoretic
semantics, if a term has no reference, it has no meaning. According to
experience-grounded semantics, every term in experience have meaning
--- by the role it
Dave,
Sorry to reply so tardily. I had to devote some time to other, pressing,
matters.
First, a general comment. There seems to be a very interesting approach to
arguing one's case being taken by some posters on this list in recent days.
I believe this approach was evinced most
Dave,
Well, I thought I'd described how pretty well. Even why. See my recent
conversation with Dr. Heger on this list. I'll be happy to answer specific
questions based on those explanations but I'm not going to repeat them
here. Simply haven't got the time.
Although I have not been
Ben,
Some questions then.
You don't have any spaces or frames as such within your systems? (what terms
would you use/prefer here BTW?) Everything is potentially connected to
everything else? Perhaps you can give some example from say your
pet-in-a-virtual-world (or anything else). It
Ben,
Your reply raised several interesting topics, and most of them cannot
be settled down in this kind of email exchanges. Therefore, I won't
address every of them here, but will propose another solution, in a
separate private email.
Go back to where this debate starts: the asymmetry of
I guess the obvious follow up question is when your systems search among
options for a response to a situation, they don't search in a systematic way
through spaces of options? They can just start anywhere and end up anywhere in
the system's web of knowledge - as you can in searching the Web
Pei:The NARS solution fits people's intuition
You guys keep talking - perfectly reasonably - about how your logics do or
don't fit your intuition. The logical question is - how - on what
principles - does your intuition work? What ideas do you have about this?
What I should have added is that presumably your intuition must work on
radically different principles to your logics - otherwise you could
incorporate it/them
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
For people who really want to know, the issue of how NARS gets its
intuition is addressed in Section 14.1.3 of my book. However, I don't
think I can explain it to everyone's satisfaction by email.
Pei
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei:The NARS solution
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I guess the obvious follow up question is when your systems search among
options for a response to a situation, they don't search in a systematic way
through spaces of options? They can just start anywhere and end up
Ben,
Well, I guess you told me! I'll just be taking my loosely-coupled
...bunch of clever narrow-AI widgets... right on out of here. No need to
worry about me venturing an opinion here ever again. I have neither the
energy nor, apparently, the intellectual ability to respond to a broadside
The OpenCog Atomspace --- its knowledge-base of nodes and links --- is
totally free-form without any overarching structures imposed by the
programmer
However, hierarchies or frames can of course exist as structures within this
free-form pool of nodes and links
In building a particular app using
Brad,
Sorry if my response was somehow harsh or inappropriate, it really wasn't
intended as such. Your contributions to the list are valued. These last
few weeks have been rather tough for me in my entrepreneurial role (it's not
the best time to be operating a small business, which is what
Thanks Pei!
This is an interesting dialogue, but indeed, I have some reservations about
putting so much energy into email dialogues -- for a couple reasons
1)
because, once they're done,
the text generated basically just vanishes into messy, barely-searchable
archives.
2)
because I tend to
Ben,
My summary was on the asymmetry of induction/abduction topic alone,
not on NARS vs. PLN in general --- of course NARS is counterintuitive
in several places!
Under that restriction, I assume you'll agree with me summary.
Please note that this issue is related to Hempel's Paradox, but not
I cannot understand this statement.
But I will repeat that the logic aspect of OpenCogPrime is not the whole
thing -- so the system's intuition, when the system is complete enough to
have one, will not result solely from its logic aspects...
ben
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Mike Tintner
Ben,
Thanks. But you didn't reply to the surely central-to-AGI question of whether
this free-form knowledge base is or can be multi-domain - and particularly
involve radically conflicting sets of rules about how given objects can behave
- a central feature of the human brain and its knowledge
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ben,
Thanks. But you didn't reply to the surely central-to-AGI question of
whether this free-form knowledge base is or can be multi-domain - and
particularly involve radically conflicting sets of rules about how given
And, just to clarify: the fact that I set up this list and pay $12/month for
its hosting, and deal with the occasional list-moderation issues that
arise, is not supposed to give my **AI opinions** primacy over anybody
else's on the list, in discussions I only intervene as moderator when
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really know what you mean by a primary decision process?
In OpenCogPrime, probabilistic logic is not *the* primary decision
process
However, it is one of the major ingredients that goes into decisions
the system
Can you provide me with a link to how you deal with explanations and
reasons in OCP?
Jim Bromer
That topic is so broad I wouldn't know what to do except to point you to PLN
generally..
http://www.amazon.com/Probabilistic-Logic-Networks-Comprehensive-Framework/dp/0387768718
(alas the book
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad,
Sorry if my response was somehow harsh or inappropriate, it really wasn't
intended as such. Your contributions to the list are valued. These last
few weeks have been rather tough for me in my entrepreneurial role
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These last
few weeks have been rather tough for me in my entrepreneurial role (it's not
the best time to be operating a small business, which is what Novamente LLC
is) so I may be in a crankier mood than usual for that
Ben,
I think that's all been extremely clear -and I think you've been very good in
all your different roles :). Your efforts have produced a v. good group -and a
great many thanks for them.
And, just to clarify: the fact that I set up this list and pay $12/month for
its hosting, and deal
Pei, Ben,
I am going to try to spell out an arguments for each side (arguing for
symmetry, then for asymmetry).
For Symmetry:
Suppose we get negative evidence for As are Bs, such that we are
tempted to say no As are Bs. We then consider the statement Bs are
As, with no other info. We think, If
Hi Brad,
An interesting point of conceptual agreement between OCP and Texai designs
is that very specifically engineered bootstrapping processes are necessary
to push into AGI territory. Attempting to summarize using my limited
knowledge, Texai hopes to achieve that boostrapping via reasoning
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Pei Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei, Ben,
I am going to try to spell out an arguments for each side (arguing for
symmetry, then for asymmetry).
For Symmetry:
Suppose we get negative
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your point --- it comes from the fact that As are Bs and Bs
are As have the same positive evidence (both in NARS and in PLN),
plus the additional assumption that no positive evidence means
negative evidence. Here the
YKY,
There is not really a fundamental difference here as I understand it--
it is convenient to think of the KB as a hypergraph, and this way of
thinking of it does suggest some interesting implementation decisions
that I wish I knew more about (ie opencog uses an exotic type of
database), but
If nothing else, for the price of a movie ticket per month, it provides me
many more hours of monthly entertainment ... with a much more interesting
cast of characters than any Hollywood flick ... though the plot development
gets confusing at times ;-)
And who knows, some of these discussions
I guess I'll try #3 and see what happens. Recently, I've decided to
use Lisp as the procedural language, so that makes my approach even
more similar to OCP's. One remaining big difference is that my KB is
sentential but OCP's is graphical. Maybe we should spend some time
discussing the
Hi,
What this highlights for me is the idea that NARS truth values attempt
to reflect the evidence so far, while probabilities attempt to reflect
the world
I agree that probabilities attempt to reflect the world
.
Well said. This is exactly the difference between an
No idea, Mentifex ... I haven't filtered out any of your messages (or
anyone's) ... but sometimes messages get held up at listbox.com by their
automated spam filters (or for other random reasons) and I take too long to
log in there and approve them...
ben
Well, how come my posts aren't
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that's a major difference conceptually, as there's a
constant-time
conversion between the two representations.
In my approach (which is not even implemented yet) the KB contains
rules that are used to
Ben Goertzel wrote:
And, just to clarify: the fact that I set up this list and pay $12/month for
its hosting, and deal with the occasional list-moderation issues that
arise, is not supposed to give my **AI opinions** primacy over anybody
else's on the list, in discussions I only intervene
... some loose ends in reply to a message from a few days back ...
Mike Tintner wrote:
***
Be honest - when and where have you ever addressed creative problems?
[Just count how many problems I have raised)..
***
In my 1997 book FROM COMPLEXITY TO CREATIVITY
***
Just as it is obvious
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OpenCog has VariableNodes in the AtomTable, which are used to represent
variables in the sense of FOL ...
I'm still unclear as to how OC performs inference with variables,
unification, etc. Maybe you can explain that
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are other differences with OCP, as you know I plan to use PZB
logic, and I've written part of a Lisp prototype. I'm not sure what's
the best way to opensource it -- integrating with OCP, or as a
separate
46 matches
Mail list logo
