Vlad: Article is about problems with deductive-style ontologies, so it
should apply to Cyc, but not to NARS. Dealing with different levels of
belief (evidence) and context-sensitivity of concepts is central to
NARS
Vlad,
Thanks for reply. The central criticism of the article for me is that
logic - syllogisms - on the whole produce trivial results. Why are the
deductions that all Greeks are mortal, or that Brooklyners speak with
Brooklyn accents, any less trivial because they are accompanied by levels of
belief, ("well I'm not terribly sure about that"), or context-sensitivity,
("of course it all depends what you mean by "mortal" or "accents")? Seems to
me - triviality is triviality however you dress it up. And I have to say I
have never (in my admittedly limited experience) seen other than trivial
results from AI logical reasoning. Have you? Could you give an example or
two?
And what has logic got to do with AGI - i.e. problemsolving in unfamiliar
domains, where, by definition surely, logic, (which can only work on
familiar, formal knowledge), cannot apply?
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
