Charles Hixson wrote (in response to me): > >-- create a flexible knowledge representation (KR) useful for > representing > >all forms of knowledge (declarative, procedural, perceptual, abstract, > >linguistic, explicit, implicit, etc. etc.) > > > This probably won't work. Thinking of the brain as a model, we have > something called the "synesthetic gearbox" which is used to relate > information in one modality of senstation with another modality. This > is a part of the reason that I suggested that one of the hueristic > modules be specialized for message passing (and translation).
There are both significant differences, and significant similarities, between the representations used by different parts of the human brain. They all use neurons and synapses, frequencies of neural firing, neurotransmitter chemistry, etc., in fairly similar ways. Of course there are also some major differences in neural architecture btw brain regions -- different types of neurons, different neurotransmitter concentrations, different connective arrangementc, etc. Similarly there are significant similarities & differences btw the representations used by different parts of Novamente. They all use Novamente Nodes and Links, and all use similar quantitative parameters of Nodes and Links, and there's a lot of overlap in the MindAgents (dynamical processes) they use. But there are also significant differences, in the frequency of different node and link types, the parameters of the different MindAgents, etc. > Again the term "general intelligence". I would like to suggest that the > intelligence needed to repair an auto engine is different from that > needed to solve a calculus equation. Of course it is different in many ways. It's also similar in many ways. I believe that those two forms of intelligence consist of basically the same set of processes, acting on the same basic sort of knowledge. But the two cases have very different underlying "parameter settings". In the brain case, different types of neural connectivity patterns, perhaps different concentrations of neurotransmitters in different brain regions, perhaps even different amounts of different types of neurons -- all of which leads to different emergent structures/dynamics. > I see the General Intelligence as > being the primarily to handle problems for which no hueristic can be > found, and would suggest that nearly any even slightly tuned hueristic > is better than the general intellligence for almost all problems. E.g., > if one is repairing an auto engine, one hueristic would be to remember > the shapes of all the pieces you have seen, and to remember where they > were when you first saw them. Just think how that one hueristic would > assist reassembling the engine. Yes, but what allows a human mind to learn that heuristic? Our general (reasonably general, but far from absolutely general) intelligence. > >Set up a knowledge base involving all these mind agents.. hook it up to > >sensors & actuators & give it a basic goal relating to its environment... > > > >Of course, this general framework and 89 cents will get you a McDonald's > >Junior Burger. All the work is in designing and implementing > the KR and the > >MindAgents!! That's what we've spent (and are spending) all our > time on... > > > May I suggest that if you are even close to what you are attempting, > that you have the start of a dandy personal secretary. With so much > correspondence coming via e-mail these days, this would create a very > simplified environment in which the entity would need to operate. In > this limited environment you wouldn't need full meanings for most words, > only categories and valuations. As I said in a recent post, I prefer to stay away from natural language processing at this stage, until the system has acquired a rudimentary understanding of natural language thru its own experience. We're not quite there yet ;) ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/
