Pei Wang wrote:
My strategy is to be extremely circumspect about any kind of
formalization that closes off options, so my initial goal is not a
theory as such (in the sense that NARS is a theory), but to produce a
"framework" within which theories can be couched.
I see your point. However, I'm sure you know that such a framework
cannot be really "theory-neutral". Instead, it more likely to be
within the freedom given by a certain theory.
For example, in NARS there are many system parameters to be
determined, and a testing platform/framework will surely make the job
much efficient. On the other hand, I don't think it is like to build a
framework that allow all kinds of system to be couched together.
You need to convince me (later) with more details. For example, I and
Ben have been tried for years to find concrete ways to compare NARS
and Novamente, and we haven't found them yet.
Thanks for the explanation --- the issue is more clear to me now, and
no formalization is needed here. ;-)
Okay, I think we agree in these points.
About the framework not being theory-neutral: no, I would not pretend
that it was! No problem there: I know its limitations.
What I care about more is the methodological strategy: the late-binding
of the theory, if you see what I mean.
I will try to see if I can extract NARS and Novamente as special cases
of the framework at some point. I believe I have a chance of doing this
(I have actually thought about it, believe it or not), but its not going
to happen soon. :-)
Richard Loosemore
-----
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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
