On 1/20/07, David Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... Do we divine the rules/laws/algorithms from a mass of data or do we
generate
the appropriate conclusions when we need them because we understand how it actually works?
Just as chemistry is reducible to physics, in theory, while in reality it is a completely different subject... I think it is necessary that we populate the knowledgebase with *redundant* facts/rules. So we don't have to derive everything from scratch every time we do an inference. Some facts/rules are derivable from other facts/rules. Whenever a fact/rule require more than, say, 3 steps of inference we will enter it into the knowledgebase. This does not mean that the AGI does not *understand* the facts/rules. It does, but it memorizes intermediate results. If needed, it can explain the facts/rules using more basic facts/rules. YKY ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
