On Feb 17, 2008 12:56 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I raised this issue before: by "logical rules", do you mean inference > > rules (like "Derive conclusion C from premises A and B"), or > > implication statements (like "If A and B are true, then C is true")? > > These two are very often confused with each other, and that confusion > > has serious consequences. AGI needs plenty of the latter, but just a > > relatively small number of the former. > > Sorry... I can't see the distinction. Maybe you mean causation vs > implication? For example, eating sweets may cause cavities, but it is not > an implication because P(cavities|sweets) != 1?
The best example of this difference is Carroll's Paradox --- see http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html > What I mean by "rule" is any formula that has variables in it. Both of them can have variables in them. > The kind of rules I have in mind... let me give an example. One day I > opened the microwave and saw a dish of raw fish inside. I abductively > conclude that my mom has put a frozen fish inside to defrost it but was too > lazy to wait till it finished to take it out. In order to do this reasoning > I need the following facts: > 1. the microwave is normally empty when not in use > 2. humans can move things around > 3. defrosting takes time > 4. waiting for the fish to defrost is boring > 5. putting the fish inside and forgeting to press the cook button is > unlikely because the 2 actions occur closely > 6. forgetfulness usually require a substantial time interval > 7. etc etc... Then by "rules" you mean implication statements, not inference rules. > Obviously the current Cyc KB do not have these facts. That's why I say more > facts are needed. Sure. No KB can be complete in this sense. However I'm not sure if you can do better than Cyc. If you just want to add more knowledge, why not build on the top of Cyc? > Secondly, I suspect that some "implicit rules" are needed for an inference > engine to string these facts together to form a linear proof -- if you get > my drift. But I find it hard to explain... That will be "control rules", which is part of the control mechanism. With commonsense knowledge you cannot really have a "proof" that settles the truth-value of a conclusion once for all. You can only have "arguments", which are much less conclusive. Pei ------------------------------------------- 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
