My mistake --- the previous email was meant to be private, though I was too tired to remember that I shouldn't use "reply". :-(
Anyway, I don't mind to share this paper, but please don't post it on the Web. Pei On 10/4/07, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike, > > Attached is the paper (for your personal use only). Comments are welcome. > > Pei > > On 10/4/07, mike ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If permissible, I to would be interested in the JoETAI version of your > > paper. > > > > Thanks, > > Mike Ramsey > > > > > > On 10/4/07, Edward W. Porter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to Pei Wang's post of 10/4/2007 3:13 PM > > > > > > Thanks for giving us a pointer so such inside info. > > > > > > Googling for the article you listed I found > > > > > > > > > 1. The Logic of Categorization, by PeiWang at > > http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.categorization.pdf > > FOR FREE; and > > > > > > 2. A logic of categorization Authors: Wang, Pei; Hofstadter, Douglas; > > Source: Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, > > Volume 18, Number 2, June 2006 , pp. 193-213(21) FOR $46.92 > > > > > > Is the free one roughly as good as the $46.92 one, and, if not, are you > > allowed to send me a copy of the better one for free? > > > > > > Edward W. Porter > > > Porter & Associates > > > 24 String Bridge S12 > > > Exeter, NH 03833 > > > (617) 494-1722 > > > Fax (617) 494-1822 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pei Wang [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:13 PM > > > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > > > Subject: Re: [agi] breaking the small hardware mindset > > > > > > > > > On 10/4/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh, > > > > > > > > (Talking of "breaking the small hardware mindset," thank god for the > > > > company with the largest hardware mindset -- or at least the largest > > > > physical embodiment of one-- Google. Without them I wouldn't have > > > > known what "FARG" meant, and would have had to either (1) read your > > > > valuable response with less than the understanding it deserves or (2) > > > > embarrassed myself by admitting ignorance and asking for a > > > > clarification.) > > > > > > > > With regard to your answer, copied below, I thought the answer would > > > > be something like that. > > > > > > > > So which of the below types of "representational problems" are the > > > > reasons why their basic approach is not automatically extendable? > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. They have no general purpose representation that can represent > > > > almost anything in a sufficiently uniform representational scheme to > > > > let their analogy net matching algorithm be universally applied > > > > without requiring custom patches for each new type of thing to be > > > > represented. > > > > > > > > 2. They have no general purpose mechanism for determining what are > > > > relevant similarities and generalities across which to allow slippage > > > > for purposes of analogy. > > > > > > > > 3. They have no general purpose mechanism for automatically finding > > > > which compositional patterns map to which lower level representations, > > > > and which of those compositional patterns are similar to each other in > > > > a way appropriate for slippages. > > > > > > > > 4. They have no general purpose mechanism for automatically > > > > determining what would be appropriately coordinated slippages in > > > > semantic hyperspace. > > > > > > > > 5. Some reason not listed above. > > > > > > > > I don't know the answer. There is no reason why you should. But if > > > > you -- or any other interested reader – do, or if you have any good > > > > thoughts on the subject, please tell me. > > > > > > I guess I do know more on this topic, but it is a long story for which I > > don't have the time to tell. Hopefully the following paper can answer some > > of the questions: > > > > > > A logic of categorization > > > Pei Wang and Douglas Hofstadter > > > Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, Vol.18, > > No.2, Pages 193-213, 2006 > > > > > > Pei > > > > > > > I may be naïve. I may be overly big-hardware optimistic. But based > > > > on the architecture I have in mind, I think a Novamente-type system, > > > > if it is not already architected to do so, could be modified to handle > > > > all of these problems (except perhaps 5, if there is a 5) and, thus, > > > > provide powerful analogy drawing across virtually all domains. > > > > > > > > Edward W. Porter > > > > Porter & Associates > > > > 24 String Bridge S12 > > > > Exeter, NH 03833 > > > > (617) 494-1722 > > > > Fax (617) 494-1822 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:44 PM > > > > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > > > > Subject: Re: [agi] breaking the small hardware mindset > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 04 October 2007 10:56:59 am, Edward W. Porter wrote: > > > > > You appear to know more on the subject of current analogy drawing > > > > > research than me. So could you please explain to me what are the > > > > > major current problems people are having in trying figure out how to > > > > > draw analogies using a structure mapping approach that has a > > > > > mechanism for coordinating similarity slippage, an approach somewhat > > > > > similar to Hofstadter approach in Copycat? > > > > > > > > > Lets say we want a system that could draw analogies in real time > > > > > when generating natural language output at the level people can, > > > > > assuming there is some roughly semantic-net like representation of > > > > > world knowledge, and lets say we have roughly brain level hardware, > > > > > what ever that is. What are the current major problems? > > > > > > > > The big problem is that structure mapping is brittlely dependent on > > > > representation, as Hofstadter complains; but that the FARG school > > > > hasn't really come up with a generative theory (every Copycat-like > > > > analogizer requires a pile of human-written Codelets which increases > > > > linearly with the knowledge base -- and thus there is a real problem > > > > building a Copycat that can learn its concepts). > > > > > > > > In my humble opinion, of course. > > > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > 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/?&; > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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/?&; > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > 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/?&; > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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/?&; > > > > ________________________________ > > 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/?&; > > ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=50188520-590fc9
