----- Original Message ----- From: "Pei Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <agi@v2.listbox.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [agi] small code small hardware
> Well, once again we need to distinguish two different levels of > language. In my NARS, the system's knowledge/beliefs are represented > in a language called Narsese, which has the ability to describe a > sequence of system operations. In that sense, the system can create > and modify its "programs" by which given tasks are processed. This is as good as any to define what a language inside an AGI is. How efficient and how much of your *system* that language can access is the only other question I have. > On the other level, all the Narsese sentences are treated as data by the > system's implementation language, Java, whose code the system cannot > modify. In theory, Narsese can be extended to include all Java > functionality (though I don't think it will be necessary), but even > after that, the system still doesn't/cannot/shouldn't modify its own > source code. If the code in Java encodes algorithms that are part of your AGI design, then your internal language can't access all your Java functionality unless you made it explicitly that way. If your whole AGI was coded in your internal language then I wouldn't have that same criticism as to it's flexibility. If you code your AGI algorithms in Java and then call those programs from your internal language, what happens when you want to enhance or add to the algorithms written in Java? How do you guarantee that all algorithms needed to power the AGI will be present in any single copy of your Java program? > If what you are after is just flexibility in behavior, I think there > are much better ways to achieve it than self-modifying source-code. This isn't an either/or. Solutions can be coded in programs and/or data. We have no disagreement on that. I'm only saying that having *both* abilities will always be better than just being able to change the data only. If you can make a program instead of just using data with a program that already exists, you will always have more flexibility than if this option wasn't open to you at all. If you disagree, please explain why. It seems quite obvious to me and if I am mistaken, I would appreciate the reasons so I can adjust my thinking. -- David Clark ----- 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
