Hi,
Has anyone done in-depth (i.e. experimental or theoretical) comparison
of accuracy-based LCSs (XCS) and Eric Baum's economy? Eric only
mentions superiority over ZCS. But XCS are closer to Eric's systems,
fitness of rules is based on their prediction of reward (compare to
making bids). I
(off topic, but there are something relevant for AGI)
My fears about economical libertarianism could be illustrated with a fish
pond analogy. If there is a small pond with a large number of small fish of
some predatory species, after an amount of time they will cannibalize and
eat each other
It looks to me as if NARS can be modeled by a prototype based language
with operators for is an ancestor of and is a descendant of.
I don't believe that this is the case at all. NARS correctly handles
cases where entities co-occur or where one entity implies another only due
to other
When looking at it through a crisp glass, the relation is a
preorder, not a (partial) order. And priming is essential. For
example, in certain contexts, we think that an animal is a human
(anthropomorphism).
On 10/9/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ack! Let me rephrase. Despite the
RE: (1) THE VALUE OF CHILD OF AND PARENT OF RELATIONS(2)
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE VALUE IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN GENERALIZATIONAL
AND COMPOSITIONAL INHERITANCE HIERARCHIES.
Re Mark Wasers 10/9/2007 9:46 AM post: Perhaps Mark understands something
I dont.
I think relations that can be
RE: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense?Thus, as I
understand it, one can view all inheritance statements as indicating the
evidence that one instance or category belongs to, and thus is a child of
another category, which includes, and thus can be viewed as a parent of
Mark,
Thank you for your reply. I just ate a lunch with too much fat (luckily
largely olive oil) in it so, my brain is a little sleepy. If it is not
too much trouble could you please map out the inheritance relationships
from which one derives how I am allowed to drink alcohol is both a
parent
MessageMost of the discussion I read in Pei's article related to inheritance
relations between terms, that operated as subject and predicates in sentences
that are inheritance statements, rather than between entire statements, unless
the statement was a subject or a predicate of a higher order
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 12:36:10PM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote:
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Fred is a human
Fred is an animal
You REALLY can't do good reasoning using formal logic in natural
language...at least in English. That's why the
Mark,
The basic inference rules in NARS that would support an implication of the
form S is a child of P are of the form:
DEDUCTION INFERENCE RULE:
Given S -- M and M-- P, this implies S -- P
ABDUCTION INFERENCE RULE:
Given S -- M and P -- M, this implies S -- P to some degree
With googling, I found that older people has lower IQ
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060504082306.htm
IMO, the brain is like a muscle, not an organ. IQ is said to be highly
genetic, and the heritability increases with age. Perhaps that older
people do not have much mental
In NARS, the Deduction/Induction/Abduction trio has (at least) three
different-though-isomorphic forms, one on inheritance, one on
implication, and one mixed.
For people who don't have access to the book, see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.abduction.pdf , though the
symbols used in that
On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Robert Wensman wrote:
This is of course just an illustration and by no means a proof that
the same thing would occur in a laissez-faire/libertarianism
economy. Libertarians commonly put blame for monopolies on
government involvement, and I guess some would
Sorry I have to be brief --- Tuesday means 5 hours teaching to me. :-(
Inheritance mainly means (i.e., beside its formal definition) to
use one term as another. If S -- P is true, then S inherits the
intension of P, and P inherits the extension of S; if it is true to a
degree, then the
I think IQ tests are an important measure, but they don't measure
everything important. FDR was not nearly as bright as Richard Nixon, but
he was probably a much better president.
Ed Porter
Original Message-
From: a [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:19 PM
To:
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
Generally though, the point that you fail to see is that an AGI can
just as easily subvert *any* power structure, whether the environment
is a libertarian free market or an autocratic communist state. The
problem has nothing to do with the governance of the
In NARS, If A then B is represented as an Implication statement P
== Q, whose truth value serves a similar role as P(B|A) in a
Bayesian network, though the two have subtle and important
differences. For detailed discussion, see
http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.bayesianism.pdf and
17 matches
Mail list logo
