Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use FOL and ILP already, and they've run into intractable combinatorial explosion problems? Some may argue that my approach isn't radical **enough** (and in spite of my innate inclination toward radicalism, I'm trying hard in my AGI work to be no more radical than is really needed, out of a desire to save time/ effort by reusing others' insights wherever possible) ... but at least I'm introducing a host of clearly novel technical ideas. What you seem to be suggesting is just to implement material from textbooks on a large knowledge base. Why do you think you're gonna make it work? Because you're gonna build a bigger KB than Cyc has built w/ their 20 years of effort and tens to hundreds of million of dollars of US gov't funding??? -- Ben G On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben, Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal here. It's just like Chinese being my first language because I was born in China. I don't speak bad English just to sound different. I think the differences in our approaches are equally superficial. I don't think there is a compelling reason why your formalism is superior (or inferior, for that matter). You have domain-specific heuristics; I'm planning to have domain-specific heuristics too. The question really boils down to whether we should collaborate or not. And if we want meaningful collaboration, everyone must exert a little effort to make it happen. It cannot be one-way. YKY --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] More brain scanning and language
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can tell what parts of the brain tend to be involved in what sorts of activities, from fMRI. Not much else. Puzzling out complex neural functions often involves combining fMRI data from humans with data from single-neuron recordings in other animals. But we can generally only measure from a few dozen neurons at a time even in invasive animal studies... As an example, no one yet knows how the brain represents 3D shapes ... is it a literal 3D map of an object? some kind of symbolic representation? some combination? something inbetween? fMRI or other brain imaging tools don't tell us, yet... I think we'll need better tools ... Grid cells ( http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Grid_cells ) is a very impressive feature. You can infer a lot from findings like this, about the way (low-level) knowledge forms in the brain. Presumably representations of 3D scenes include their grid projections, and some kind of structural (causal) skeleton of the scene. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me), more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system built on OpenCog, not yet fully documented but I'm actively working on the docs now). I wonder why you don't join Stephen Reed on the texai project? Is it because you don't like the open-source nature of his project? ben On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use FOL and ILP already, and they've run into intractable combinatorial explosion problems? Some may argue that my approach isn't radical **enough** (and in spite of my innate inclination toward radicalism, I'm trying hard in my AGI work to be no more radical than is really needed, out of a desire to save time/ effort by reusing others' insights wherever possible) ... but at least I'm introducing a host of clearly novel technical ideas. What you seem to be suggesting is just to implement material from textbooks on a large knowledge base. Why do you think you're gonna make it work? Because you're gonna build a bigger KB than Cyc has built w/ their 20 years of effort and tens to hundreds of million of dollars of US gov't funding??? -- Ben G On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben, Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal here. It's just like Chinese being my first language because I was born in China. I don't speak bad English just to sound different. I think the differences in our approaches are equally superficial. I don't think there is a compelling reason why your formalism is superior (or inferior, for that matter). You have domain-specific heuristics; I'm planning to have domain-specific heuristics too. The question really boils down to whether we should collaborate or not. And if we want meaningful collaboration, everyone must exert a little effort to make it happen. It cannot be one-way. YKY --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me), more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system built on OpenCog, not yet fully documented but I'm actively working on the docs now). I wonder why you don't join Stephen Reed on the texai project? Is it because you don't like the open-source nature of his project? You have built an AGI enterprise (at least, on the way to it). Often the *people* matter more than the technology. I *need* to collaborate with the community in order to win. And vice versa. Texai is closer to my theory but you have a bigger community. I don't have the resources to rebuild the infrastructure that you have, eg the virtual reality embodiment etc. Opensource is such a thorny issue. I don't have a clear idea yet... YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Hi Ben, Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal here. It's just like Chinese being my first language because I was born in China. I don't speak bad English just to sound different. I think the differences in our approaches are equally superficial. I don't think there is a compelling reason why your formalism is superior (or inferior, for that matter). You have domain-specific heuristics; I'm planning to have domain-specific heuristics too. The question really boils down to whether we should collaborate or not. And if we want meaningful collaboration, everyone must exert a little effort to make it happen. It cannot be one-way. YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) representing uncertainties in a way that leads to tractable, meaningful logical manipulations. Indefinite probabilities achieve this. I'm not saying they're the only way to achieve this, but I'll argue that single-number, Walley-interval, fuzzy, or full-pdf approaches are not adequate for various reasons. First of all, the *tractability* of your algorithm depends on heuristics that you design, which are separable from the underlying probabilistic logic calculus. In your mind, these 2 things may be mixed up. Indefinite probabilities DO NOT imply faster inference. Domain-specific heuristics do that. Secondly, I have no problem at all, with using your indefinite probability approach. It's a laudable achievement what you've accomplished. Thirdly, probabilistic logics -- of *any* flavor -- should [approximately] subsume binary logic if they are sound. So there is no reason why your logic is so different that it cannot be expressed in FOL. Fourthly, the approach that I'm more familiar with is interval probability. I acknowledge that you have gone further in this direction, and that's a good thing. 2) using inference rules that lead to relatively high-confidence uncertainty propagation. For instance term logic deduction is better for uncertain inference than modus ponens deduction, as detailed analysis reveals I believe term logic is translatable to FOL -- Fred Sommers mentioned that in his book. 3) propagating uncertainties meaningfully through abstract logical formulae involving nested quantifiers (we do this in a special way in PLN using third-order probabilities; I have not seen any other conceptually satisfactory solution) Again, that's well done. But are you saying that the same cannot be achieved using FOL? 4) most critically perhaps, using uncertain truth values within inference control to help pare down the combinatorial explosion Uncertain truth values DO NOT imply faster inference. In fact, they slow down inference wrt binary logic. If your inference algorithm is faster than resolution, and it's sound (so it subsumes binary logic), then you have found a faster FOL inference algorithm. But that's not true; what you're doing is domain-specific heuristics. How these questions are answered matters a LOT, and my colleagues and I spent years working on this stuff. It's not a matter of converting between equivalent formalisms. I think one can do indefinite probability + FOL + domain-specific heuristics just as you can do indefinite probability + term logic + domain-specific heuristics but it may cost an amount of effort that you're unwilling to pay. This is a very sad situation... YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use FOL and ILP already, and they've run into intractable combinatorial explosion problems? Calm down =) I'll use domain-specific heuristics just as you do. There's nothing wrong with textbooks. Some may argue that my approach isn't radical **enough** (and in spite of my innate inclination toward radicalism, I'm trying hard in my AGI work to be no more radical than is really needed, out of a desire to save time/ effort by reusing others' insights wherever possible) ... but at least I'm introducing a host of clearly novel technical ideas. Yes, I acknowledge that you have novel ideas. But do you really think I'm so dumb that I ONLY use textbook ideas? I try to integrate existing methods. My style of innovation is kind of subtle. You have done something new, but not so new as to be in a totally different dimension. YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
As we have discussed a while back on the OpenCog mail list, I would like to see a RDF interface to some level of the OpenCog Atom Table. I think that would suit both YKY and myself. Our discussion went so far as to consider ways to assign URI's to appropriate atoms. Yes, I still think that's a good idea and I'm fairly sure it will happen this year... probably not too long after the code is considered really ready for release... ben --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
First of all, the *tractability* of your algorithm depends on heuristics that you design, which are separable from the underlying probabilistic logic calculus. In your mind, these 2 things may be mixed up. Indefinite probabilities DO NOT imply faster inference. Domain-specific heuristics do that. Not all heuristics for inference control are narrowly domain-specific Some may be generally applicable across very broad sets of domains, say across all domains satisfying certain broad mathematical properties such as similar theorems tend to have similar proofs. So, I agree that indefinite probabilities themselves don't imply faster inference. However, we have some heuristics for (relatively) fast inference control that we believe will apply across any domains satisfying certain broad mathematical properties ... and that won't work with traditional representations of uncertainty Secondly, I have no problem at all, with using your indefinite probability approach. It's a laudable achievement what you've accomplished. Thirdly, probabilistic logics -- of *any* flavor -- should [approximately] subsume binary logic if they are sound. So there is no reason why your logic is so different that it cannot be expressed in FOL. Yes of course it can be expressed in FOL ... it can be expressed in Morse Code too, but I don't see a point to it ;-) ... it could also be realized via a mechanical contraption made of TinkerToys ... like Danny Hillis's http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/tinkertoycomputer_1.jpg ;-) But are you saying that the same cannot be achieved using FOL? If you attach indefinite probabilities to FOL propositions, and create indefinite probability formulas corresponding to standard FOL rules, you will have a subset of PLN But you'll have a hard time applying Bayes rule to FOL propositions without being willing to assign probabilities to terms ... and you'll have a hard time applying it to FOL variable expressions without doing something that equates to assigning probabilities to propositions w. unbound variables ... and like I said, I haven't seen any other adequate way of propagating pdf's through quantifiers than the one we use in PLN, though Halpern's book describes a lot of inadequate ways ;-) 4) most critically perhaps, using uncertain truth values within inference control to help pare down the combinatorial explosion Uncertain truth values DO NOT imply faster inference. In fact, they slow down inference wrt binary logic. If your inference algorithm is faster than resolution, and it's sound (so it subsumes binary logic), then you have found a faster FOL inference algorithm. But that's not true; what you're doing is domain-specific heuristics. As noted above, the truth is somewhere inbetween. You can find inference control heuristics that exploit general mathematical properties of domains -- so they don't apply to ALL domains, but nor are they specialized to any particular domain. Evolution is like this in fact -- it's no good at optimizing random fitness functions, but it's good at optimizing fitness functions satisfying certain mathematical properties, regardless of the specific domain they refer to I think one can do indefinite probability + FOL + domain-specific heuristics just as you can do indefinite probability + term logic + domain-specific heuristics but it may cost an amount of effort that you're unwilling to pay. well we do both in PLN ... PLN is not a pure term logic... This is a very sad situation... Oh ... I thought it was funny ... I suppose I'm glad I have a perverse sense of humour ;-D ben --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Hi Ben. Thanks for suggesting that YKY collaborate with Texai because of our similar approaches to knowledge representation. I believe that Cyc's lack of AGI progress is not due to their choice of FOL but rather that Cycorp emphasizes the hand-crafting of commonsense knowledge about things while disfavoring skill acquisition. Texai will test the hypothesis that Cyc-style FOL (i.e. a RDF compatible subset) can represent procedures sufficient to support a mechanism that learns knowledge and skills, by being taught by mentors using natural language. My initial bootstrap subject domain choices are: * lexicon acquisition (e.g. mapping WordNet synsets to OpenCyc-style terms) * grammar rule acquisition * Java program synthesis - to support skill acquisition and executionI believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these domains will facilitate the use of FOL inference (e.g. subsumption) when I need it to supplement the current Texai spreading activation techniques for word sense disambiguation and relevance reasoning. I expect that OpenCog will focus on domains that require probabilistic reasoning, e.g. pattern recognition, which I am postponing until Texai is far enough along that expert mentors can teach it the skills for probabilistic reasoning. --- As we have discussed a while back on the OpenCog mail list, I would like to see a RDF interface to some level of the OpenCog Atom Table. I think that would suit both YKY and myself. Our discussion went so far as to consider ways to assign URI's to appropriate atoms. Cheers, -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 1:59:54 AM Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL? Also, YKY, I can't help but note that your currently approach seems extremely similar to Texai (which seems quite similar to Cyc to me), more so than to OpenCog Prime (my proposal for a Novamente-like system built on OpenCog, not yet fully documented but I'm actively working on the docs now). I wonder why you don't join Stephen Reed on the texai project? Is it because you don't like the open-source nature of his project? ben On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing I don't get, YKY, is why you think you are going to take textbook methods that have already been shown to fail, and somehow make them work. Can't you see that many others have tried to use FOL and ILP already, and they've run into intractable combinatorial explosion problems? Some may argue that my approach isn't radical **enough** (and in spite of my innate inclination toward radicalism, I'm trying hard in my AGI work to be no more radical than is really needed, out of a desire to save time/ effort by reusing others' insights wherever possible) ... but at least I'm introducing a host of clearly novel technical ideas. What you seem to be suggesting is just to implement material from textbooks on a large knowledge base. Why do you think you're gonna make it work? Because you're gonna build a bigger KB than Cyc has built w/ their 20 years of effort and tens to hundreds of million of dollars of US gov't funding??? -- Ben G On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben, Note that I did not pick FOL as my starting point because I wanted to go against you, or be a troublemaker. I chose it because that's what the textbooks I read were using. There is nothing personal here. It's just like Chinese being my first language because I was born in China. I don't speak bad English just to sound different. I think the differences in our approaches are equally superficial. I don't think there is a compelling reason why your formalism is superior (or inferior, for that matter). You have domain-specific heuristics; I'm planning to have domain-specific heuristics too. The question really boils down to whether we should collaborate or not. And if we want meaningful collaboration, everyone must exert a little effort to make it happen. It cannot be one-way. YKY --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
You have done something new, but not so new as to be in a totally different dimension. YKY I have some ideas more like that too but I've postponed trying to sell them to others, for the moment ;-) ... it's hard enough to sell fairly basic stuff like PLN ... Look for some stuff on the applications of hypersets and division algebras to endowing AGIs with free will and reflective awareness, maybe in early 09 ... ;) -- Ben --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] modus ponens
Modus ponens can be defined in a few ways. If you take the binary logic definition: A - B means ~A v B you can translate this into probabilities but the result is a mess. I have analysed this in detail but it's complicated. In short, this definition is incompatible with probability calculus. Instead I simply use A - B meaning P(B|A) = p where p is the probability. You can change p into an indefinite probability or interval. Is your modus ponens different from this? YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] More brain scanning and language
Thanks. I must confess to my usual confusion/ignorance here - but perhaps I should really have talked of solid rather than 3-D mapping. When you sit in a familiar chair, you have, I presume, a solid mapping (or perhaps the word should be moulding) - distributed over your body, of how it can and will fit into that chair. And I'm presuming that the maps in the brain may have a similar solid structure. And when you're in a familiar room, you may also have brain maps [or moulds] that tell you automatically what is likely to be in front of you, at back, and on each side. Does your sense of 3-D mapping equate to this? Bob/JAR.. MT: What are the implications for computing - how would it have to change - if the brain uses literal 3D maps - and they turn out to be a necessity? [Computers, I take it, can't currently produce them?] 2D mapping has been achievable for a while, but 3D mapping is a fairly recent phenomena because it's not until recent years that enough processing power has been available to handle this kind of task in anything like real time. To a large extent the DARPA urban challenge was all about 3D mapping and the accompanying sensor technologies needed to support it. DARPA challenges are mostly 2.5D, which is a much simpler problem. On the other hand, 3D mapping is pretty cheap if you have decent algorithms. The sensors are dirt cheap, so it is mostly knowing what to do with the data once you have it. J. Andrew Rogers --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] modus ponens
I mean this form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens i.e. A implies B A |- B Probabilistically, this means you have P(B|A) P(A) and want to infer from these P(B) under the most direct interpretation... ben On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:08 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Modus ponens can be defined in a few ways. If you take the binary logic definition: A - B means ~A v B you can translate this into probabilities but the result is a mess. I have analysed this in detail but it's complicated. In short, this definition is incompatible with probability calculus. Instead I simply use A - B meaning P(B|A) = p where p is the probability. You can change p into an indefinite probability or interval. Is your modus ponens different from this? YKY --- 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/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Ben,
If we don't work out the correspondence (even approximately) between
FOL and term logic, this conversation would not be very fruitful. I
don't even know what you're doing with PLN. I suggest we try to work
it out here step by step. If your approach really makes sense to me,
you will gain another helper =) Also, this will be good for your
project's documentation.
I have some examples:
Eng: Some philosophers are wise
TL: +Philosopher+Wise
FOL: philosopher(X) - wise(X)
Eng: Romeo loves Juliet
TL: +-Romeo* + (Loves +-Juliet*)
FOL: loves(romeo, juliet)
Eng: Women often have long hair
TL: ?
FOL: woman(X) - long_hair(X)
I know your term logic is slightly different from Fred Sommers'. Can
you fill in the TL parts and also attach indefinite probabilities?
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you attach indefinite probabilities to FOL propositions, and create
indefinite probability formulas corresponding to standard FOL rules,
you will have a subset of PLN
But you'll have a hard time applying Bayes rule to FOL propositions
without being willing to assign probabilities to terms ... and you'll
have a hard time applying it to FOL variable expressions without doing
something that equates to assigning probabilities to propositions w.
unbound variables ... and like I said, I haven't seen any other
adequate way of propagating pdf's through quantifiers than the one we
use in PLN, though Halpern's book describes a lot of inadequate ways
;-)
Re assigning probabilties to terms...
Term in term logic is completely different from term in FOL. I
guess terms in term logic roughly correspond to predicates or
propositions in FOL. Terms in FOL seem to have no counterpart in term
logic..
Anyway there should be no confusion here. Propositions are the ONLY
things that can have truth values. This applies to term logic as well
(I just refreshed my memory of TL). When truth values go from { 0, 1
} to [ 0, 1 ], we get single-value probabilistic logic. All this has
a very solid and rigorous foundation, based on so-called model theory.
YKY
---
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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Neurons
Vladimir, On 6/3/08, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that modern processors are ~3 orders of magnitude faster than a KA10, and my 10K architecture would provide another 4 orders of magnitude, for a net improvement over the KA10 of ~7 orders of magnitude. Perhaps another order of magnitude would flow from optimizing the architecture to the application rather than emulating Pentiums or KA10s. That leaves us just one order of magnitude short, and we can easily make that up by using just 10 of the 10K architecture processors. In short, we could emulate human-scale systems in a year or two with adequate funding. By that time, process improvements would probably allow us to make such systems on single wafers, at a manufacturing cost of just a few thousand dollars. Except that you still wouldn't know what to do with all that. ;-) ... which gets to my REAL source of frustration. Intel isn't making 10K processors because no one is ordering them, because of the lack of understanding of how our brain works. A scanning UV fluorescence microscope could answer many of the outstanding questions, but it would be VERY limited without a 10K processor to reconstruct the diagrams. So, for the lack of a few million dollars, both computer science and neuroscience are stymied in the same respective holes that they have been in for most of the last 40 years. From my viewpoint, AI is an oxymoron, because of this proof by exhibition that there is no intelligence to make artificially! It appears that the world is just too stupid to help, when such small bumps can stop entire generations of research in multiple disciplines. Meanwhile, drug companies are redirecting ~100% of medical research funding into molecular biology, nearly all of which leads nowhere. The present situation appears to be entirely too stable. There seems to be no visible hope past this, short of some rich person throwing a lot of money at it - and they are all too busy to keep up on forums like this one. Are we on the same page here? Steve Richfield --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values...
I don't have time to carry out a detailed mathematical discussion of
this right now...
We're about to (this week) finalize the PLN book draft ... I'll send
you a pre-publication PDF early next week and then you can read it and
we can argue this stuff after that ;-)
ben
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
If we don't work out the correspondence (even approximately) between
FOL and term logic, this conversation would not be very fruitful. I
don't even know what you're doing with PLN. I suggest we try to work
it out here step by step. If your approach really makes sense to me,
you will gain another helper =) Also, this will be good for your
project's documentation.
I have some examples:
Eng: Some philosophers are wise
TL: +Philosopher+Wise
FOL: philosopher(X) - wise(X)
Eng: Romeo loves Juliet
TL: +-Romeo* + (Loves +-Juliet*)
FOL: loves(romeo, juliet)
Eng: Women often have long hair
TL: ?
FOL: woman(X) - long_hair(X)
I know your term logic is slightly different from Fred Sommers'. Can
you fill in the TL parts and also attach indefinite probabilities?
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you attach indefinite probabilities to FOL propositions, and create
indefinite probability formulas corresponding to standard FOL rules,
you will have a subset of PLN
But you'll have a hard time applying Bayes rule to FOL propositions
without being willing to assign probabilities to terms ... and you'll
have a hard time applying it to FOL variable expressions without doing
something that equates to assigning probabilities to propositions w.
unbound variables ... and like I said, I haven't seen any other
adequate way of propagating pdf's through quantifiers than the one we
use in PLN, though Halpern's book describes a lot of inadequate ways
;-)
Re assigning probabilties to terms...
Term in term logic is completely different from term in FOL. I
guess terms in term logic roughly correspond to predicates or
propositions in FOL. Terms in FOL seem to have no counterpart in term
logic..
Anyway there should be no confusion here. Propositions are the ONLY
things that can have truth values. This applies to term logic as well
(I just refreshed my memory of TL). When truth values go from { 0, 1
} to [ 0, 1 ], we get single-value probabilistic logic. All this has
a very solid and rigorous foundation, based on so-called model theory.
YKY
---
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/?;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they
will surely become worms.
-- Henry Miller
---
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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/4/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values... Terms in term logic can have truth values. But such terms correspond to propositions in FOL. There is absolutely no confusion here. I don't have time to carry out a detailed mathematical discussion of this right now... We're about to (this week) finalize the PLN book draft ... I'll send you a pre-publication PDF early next week and then you can read it and we can argue this stuff after that ;-) Thanks alot =) YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Neurons
Strongly disagree. Computational neuroscience is moving as fast as any field of science has ever moved. Computer hardware is improving as fast as any field of technology has ever improved. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if neuron-level simulation were necessary to get human-level intelligence. With reasonable algorithmic optimization, and a few tricks our hardware can do the brain can't (e.g. store sensory experience verbatim and review it as often as necessary into learning algorithms) we should be able to knock 3 orders of magnitude or so off the pure-neuro HEPP estimate -- which puts us at ten high-end graphics cards, e.g. less than the price of a car. (or just wait till 2015 and get one high-end PC). Figuring out the algorithms is the ONLY thing standing between us and AI. Josh On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:16:54 pm, Steve Richfield wrote: ... for the lack of a few million dollars, both computer science and neuroscience are stymied in the same respective holes that they have been in for most of the last 40 years. ... Meanwhile, drug companies are redirecting ~100% of medical research funding into molecular biology, nearly all of which leads nowhere. The present situation appears to be entirely too stable. There seems to be no visible hope past this, short of some rich person throwing a lot of money at it - and they are all too busy to keep up on forums like this one. Are we on the same page here? --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re : [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
hello ben
if i can have a pdf draf,i think you very much
bruno
- Message d'origine
De : Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : agi@v2.listbox.com
Envoyé le : Mardi, 3 Juin 2008, 18h33mn 02s
Objet : Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
Propositions are not the only things that can have truth values...
I don't have time to carry out a detailed mathematical discussion of
this right now...
We're about to (this week) finalize the PLN book draft ... I'll send
you a pre-publication PDF early next week and then you can read it and
we can argue this stuff after that ;-)
ben
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
If we don't work out the correspondence (even approximately) between
FOL and term logic, this conversation would not be very fruitful. I
don't even know what you're doing with PLN. I suggest we try to work
it out here step by step. If your approach really makes sense to me,
you will gain another helper =) Also, this will be good for your
project's documentation.
I have some examples:
Eng: Some philosophers are wise
TL: +Philosopher+Wise
FOL: philosopher(X) - wise(X)
Eng: Romeo loves Juliet
TL: +-Romeo* + (Loves +-Juliet*)
FOL: loves(romeo, juliet)
Eng: Women often have long hair
TL: ?
FOL: woman(X) - long_hair(X)
I know your term logic is slightly different from Fred Sommers'. Can
you fill in the TL parts and also attach indefinite probabilities?
On 6/3/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you attach indefinite probabilities to FOL propositions, and create
indefinite probability formulas corresponding to standard FOL rules,
you will have a subset of PLN
But you'll have a hard time applying Bayes rule to FOL propositions
without being willing to assign probabilities to terms ... and you'll
have a hard time applying it to FOL variable expressions without doing
something that equates to assigning probabilities to propositions w.
unbound variables ... and like I said, I haven't seen any other
adequate way of propagating pdf's through quantifiers than the one we
use in PLN, though Halpern's book describes a lot of inadequate ways
;-)
Re assigning probabilties to terms...
Term in term logic is completely different from term in FOL. I
guess terms in term logic roughly correspond to predicates or
propositions in FOL. Terms in FOL seem to have no counterpart in term
logic..
Anyway there should be no confusion here. Propositions are the ONLY
things that can have truth values. This applies to term logic as well
(I just refreshed my memory of TL). When truth values go from { 0, 1
} to [ 0, 1 ], we get single-value probabilistic logic. All this has
a very solid and rigorous foundation, based on so-called model theory.
YKY
---
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/?;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they
will surely become worms.
-- Henry Miller
---
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/?;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
__
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible
contre les messages non sollicités
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail
---
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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these domains will facilitate the use of FOL inference (e.g. subsumption) when I need it to supplement the current Texai spreading activation techniques for word sense disambiguation and relevance reasoning. I expect that OpenCog will focus on domains that require probabilistic reasoning, e.g. pattern recognition, which I am postponing until Texai is far enough along that expert mentors can teach it the skills for probabilistic reasoning. Your approach is sensible, indeed similar to mine -- I'm also experimenting with crisp logic only. But there are 2 problems: 1. Probabilistic inference cannot be grafted onto crisp logic easily. The changes may be so great that much of the original work will be rendered useless. 2. You think we can do program synthesis with crisp logic only? This has profound implications if true... YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/3/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have any insights on how this learning will be done? That research area is known as ILP (inductive logic programming). It's very powerful in the sense that almost anything (eg, any Prolog program) can be learned that way. But the problem is that the combinatorial explosion is so great that you must use heuristics and biases. So far no one has applied it to large-scale commonsense learning. Some Cyc people have experimented with it recently. Cyc put a lot of effort into a natural language interface and failed. What approach will you use that they have not tried? FOL requires a set of transforms, e.g. All men are mortal - forall X, man(X) - mortal(X) (hard) Socrates is a man - (man(Socrates) (hard) - mortal(Socrates) (easy) - Socrates is mortal (hard). We have known for a long time how to solve the easy parts. The hard parts are AI-complete. You have to solve AI before you can learn the knowledge base. Then after you build it, you won't need it. What is the point? We don't need 100% perfect NLP ability to learn the KB. An NL interface that can accept a simple subset of English will do. YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTATION
JOHN ROSE I suppose the optimal approach to AGI has to involve some degree of connectionism. But to find isomorphic structures to connectionist graphs that are more efficient. Many things in nature cannot be evolved, for example few if any animals have wheels. Evolved structures go so far until probabilistic limits are hit. Are there structural, algorithmic and mathematic systems that are more optimal than massively dense interconnected graphs waiting to be discovered or, are they actually known but not applied to engineered cognition and consciousness? I say yes. Has activation dynamics been studied enough, - anyone have a literature reference? Then main reason I take this approach is because of resource constraints. I'm not saying that it's not worth building connectionist prototypes. In fact I'm starting to think that way where I haven't before. ED PORTER I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph structures like semantic nets, are probably close to as efficient as possible given the type of connectionism they are representing and the type of computing that is to be done on them, which include, importantly, selective spreading activation. JOHN ROSE I agree on your description of consciousness. But it would be nice to have a compact system, a minimized essence, that optimal consciousness engine if one exists. Computation is all that there is. But I often try to imagine something that is not computation. It depends on different things, and goes into subatomic physics, string theory, etc.. I think that there are aspects of computation that we don't understand, and definitely things that I don't understand but are known among well versed individuals. ED PORTER Although I think my theory of consciousness is as good as any other I have read, it is far from certain, and far from complete, and not necessarily correct in every details. I don't think the richness of human consciousness comes from a minimized essence, but rather from the complicated full-blown richness of the computation inside our brains. Since our senses can only sense --- and our minds can only think --- in terms of computation (in which I am included representation) --- at least at the moment, I cannot think of what it would mean for something to not be computation, except perhaps nothingness, which we can think of as the absence of computation. -Original Message- From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:13 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTATION I suppose the optimal approach to AGI has to involve some degree of connectionism. But to find isomorphic structures to connectionist graphs that are more efficient. Many things in nature cannot be evolved, for example few if any animals have wheels. Evolved structures go so far until probabilistic limits are hit. Are there structural, algorithmic and mathematic systems that are more optimal than massively dense interconnected graphs waiting to be discovered or, are they actually known but not applied to engineered cognition and consciousness? I say yes. Has activation dynamics been studied enough, - anyone have a literature reference? Then main reason I take this approach is because of resource constraints. I'm not saying that it's not worth building connectionist prototypes. In fact I'm starting to think that way where I haven't before. I agree on your description of consciousness. But it would be nice to have a compact system, a minimized essence, that optimal consciousness engine if one exists. Computation is all that there is. But I often try to imagine something that is not computation. It depends on different things, and goes into subatomic physics, string theory, etc.. I think that there are aspects of computation that we don't understand, and definitely things that I don't understand but are known among well versed individuals. John _ From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:46 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: RE: [agi] CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTATION JOHN ROSE So you are saying that consciousness is activations in response to patterns, including activation history. ED PORTER Yes. But I am also saying the following: -EVERYTHING -- INCLUDING CONSCIOUSNESS --- IS NOTHING BUT COMPUTATION To those who say it is a cop out to say consciousness is computation, I challenge you to describe any aspect of reality, either that in the mind, or that described by current scientific understanding, that is anything other than information and its
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
YKY said: 1. Probabilistic inference cannot be grafted onto crisp logic easily. The changes may be so great that much of the original work will be rendered useless. Agreed. However, I hope that by the time probabilistic inference is taught to Texai by mentors, it will be easy to supersede useless skills with correct ones. 2. You think we can do program synthesis with crisp logic only? This has profound implications if true... All of the work to date on program generation, macro processing, application configuration via parameters, compilation, assembly, and program optimization has used crisp knowledge representation (i.e. non-probabilistic data structures). Dynamic, feedback based optimizing compilers, such as the Java HotSpot VM, do keep track of program path statistics in order to decide when to inline methods for example. But on the whole, the traditional program development life cycle is free of probabilistic inference. I have a hypothesis that program design (to satisfy requirements), and in general engineering design, can be performed using crisp knowledge representation - with the provision that I will use cognitively-plausible spreading activation instead of, or to cache, time-consuming deductive backchaining. My current work will explore this hypothesis with regard to composing simple programs that compose skills from more primitive skills. I am adapting Gerhard Wickler's Capability Description Language to match capabilities (e.g. program composition capabilities) with tasks (e.g. clear a StringBuilder object). CDL conveniently uses a crisp FOL knowledge representation. Here is a Texai behavior language file that contains capability descriptions for primitive Java compositions. Each of these primitive capabilities is implemented by a Java object that can be persisted in the Texai KB as RDF statements. Like yourself, I find the profound implications of automatic programming fascinating. I can only hope that this fascination has guided me down the right path to AGI, rather than down a dead end. I've written a brief blog post on this and related AI-hard problems. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:20:19 PM Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL? On 6/3/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the crisp (i.e. certain or very near certain) KR for these domains will facilitate the use of FOL inference (e.g. subsumption) when I need it to supplement the current Texai spreading activation techniques for word sense disambiguation and relevance reasoning. I expect that OpenCog will focus on domains that require probabilistic reasoning, e.g. pattern recognition, which I am postponing until Texai is far enough along that expert mentors can teach it the skills for probabilistic reasoning. Your approach is sensible, indeed similar to mine -- I'm also experimenting with crisp logic only. But there are 2 problems: 1. Probabilistic inference cannot be grafted onto crisp logic easily. The changes may be so great that much of the original work will be rendered useless. 2. You think we can do program synthesis with crisp logic only? This has profound implications if true... YKY agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Excluding the middle, are we? Conscious, not conscious or null? I don't want to put words into Ben company's mouths, but I think what they are trying to do with PLN is to implement a system that expressly *includes the middle*. In theory (but not necessarily in practice) the clue to creating the first intelligent machine may be to *exclude the ends*! Scottish philosopher and economist David Hume argued way back in the 18th century that all knowledge is based on past observation. Because of this, we can never be 100% certain of *anything*. While Hume didn't put it in such terms, as I understand his thinking, it comes down to *everything* is a probability or all knowledge is fuzzy knowledge. There is no such thing as 0. There is no such thing as 1. For example, let's say you are sitting at a table holding a pencil in your hand. In the past, every time you let go of the pencil in this situation (or a similar situation), it dropped to the table. The cause and effect for this behavior is so well documented that we call the underlying principal the *law* of gravity. But, even so, can you say with probability 1.0 that the *next* time you let go of that pencil in a similar situation that it will, in fact, drop to the table? Hume said you can't. As those ads for stock brokerage firms on TV always say in their disclaimers, Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Of course, we are constantly predicting the future based on our knowledge of past events (or others' knowledge of past events which we have learned and believe to be correct). I will, for instance, give you very favorable odds if you are willing to bet against the pencil hitting the table when dropped. Unless you enjoy living life on the edge, your predictions won't stray very far from past experiences (or learned knowledge about past experiences). But, in the end, it's all probability and fuzziness. It is all belief, baby. Yes Hume and Kant actually were making contributions to AGI but didn't' know it. Although I suppose at the time there imaginations where rich and varied enough to where those possibilities were not totally unthinkable. Regarding the issue of consciousness and the rock, there are several possible scenarios to consider here. First, the rock may be conscious but only in a way that can be understood by other rocks. The rock may be conscious but it is unable to communicate with humans (and vice versa) so we assume it's not conscious. The rock is truly conscious and it thinks we're not conscious so it pretends to be just like it thinks we are and, as a result, we're tricked into thinking it's not conscious. Finally, if a rock falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Consciousness may require at least two actors. Think about it. What good would consciousness do you if there was no one else around to appreciate it? Would you, in that case, in fact be conscious? Most humans will treat a rock as if it were not conscious because, in the past, that assumption has proven to be efficacious for predictions involving rocks. I know of no instance where someone was able to talk a rock that was in the process of falling on him or her to change direction by appealing to the rock, one conscious entity to another. And maybe they should have. There is, after all, based on past experience, only a 0.9995 probability that a rock is not conscious. Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I want to take that particular rock and put it through some further tests to absolutely verify with a high degree of confidence that there may not be some trace amount of consciousness lurking inside. So the tests that I would conduct are - Verify the rock is in a solid state at close to absolute zero but not at absolute zero. The rock is not in the presence of a high frequency electromagnetic field. The rock is not in the presence of high frequency physical vibrational interactions. The rock is not in the presence of sonic vibrations. The rock is not in the presence of subatomic particle bombardment, radiation, or being hit by a microscopic black hole. The rock is not made of nano-robotic material. The rock is not an advanced, non-human derived, computer. The rock contains minimal metal content. The rock does not contain holograms. The rock does not contain electrostatic echoes. The rock is a solid, spherical structure, with no worm holes :) The rock... You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve proper non-conscious certification. John --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription:
RE: [agi] CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMPUTATION
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ED PORTER I am not an expert at computational efficiency, but I think graph structures like semantic nets, are probably close to as efficient as possible given the type of connectionism they are representing and the type of computing that is to be done on them, which include, importantly, selective spreading activation. Uhm have you checked this out? Is there any evidence this? It would make it easier if this was in fact the case. ED PORTER Although I think my theory of consciousness is as good as any other I have read, it is far from certain, and far from complete, and not necessarily correct in every details. I don't think the richness of human consciousness comes from a minimized essence, but rather from the complicated full-blown richness of the computation inside our brains. So there is a scaling to consciousness magnitude? And there are consciousness properties that are stronger or weaker depending on computational richness? Since our senses can only sense --- and our minds can only think --- in terms of computation (in which I am included representation) --- at least at the moment, I cannot think of what it would mean for something to not be computation, except perhaps nothingness, which we can think of as the absence of computation. Nothingness or maybe big bang singularity or event horizon conditions? Or some type of subatomic particle that has peculiar properties. Those are all not very helpful for what we are doing, but I still think there maybe something else... there has to be something else applicable or maybe totally inapplicable to AGI. So it may be a waste of time thinking on that one... John --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Are rocks conscious? (was RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?)
--- On Tue, 6/3/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I want to take that particular rock and put it through some further tests to absolutely verify with a high degree of confidence that there may not be some trace amount of consciousness lurking inside. So the tests that I would conduct are - Verify the rock is in a solid state at close to absolute zero but not at absolute zero. The rock is not in the presence of a high frequency electromagnetic field. The rock is not in the presence of high frequency physical vibrational interactions. The rock is not in the presence of sonic vibrations. The rock is not in the presence of subatomic particle bombardment, radiation, or being hit by a microscopic black hole. The rock is not made of nano-robotic material. The rock is not an advanced, non-human derived, computer. The rock contains minimal metal content. The rock does not contain holograms. The rock does not contain electrostatic echoes. The rock is a solid, spherical structure, with no worm holes :) The rock... You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve proper non-conscious certification. You forgot a test. The postions of the atoms in the rock encode 10^25 bits of information representing the mental states of 10^10 human brains at 10^15 bits each. The data is encrypted with a 1000 bit key, so it appears statistically random. How would you prove otherwise? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: Are rocks conscious? (was RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?)
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Are rocks conscious? (was RE: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?) --- On Tue, 6/3/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I want to take that particular rock and put it through some further tests to absolutely verify with a high degree of confidence that there may not be some trace amount of consciousness lurking inside. So the tests that I would conduct are - Verify the rock is in a solid state at close to absolute zero but not at absolute zero. The rock is not in the presence of a high frequency electromagnetic field. The rock is not in the presence of high frequency physical vibrational interactions. The rock is not in the presence of sonic vibrations. The rock is not in the presence of subatomic particle bombardment, radiation, or being hit by a microscopic black hole. The rock is not made of nano-robotic material. The rock is not an advanced, non-human derived, computer. The rock contains minimal metal content. The rock does not contain holograms. The rock does not contain electrostatic echoes. The rock is a solid, spherical structure, with no worm holes :) The rock... You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve proper non-conscious certification. You forgot a test. The postions of the atoms in the rock encode 10^25 bits of information representing the mental states of 10^10 human brains at 10^15 bits each. The data is encrypted with a 1000 bit key, so it appears statistically random. How would you prove otherwise? Actually you are on to something. Since there are patterns in the rock, molecular, granular, electronic, subatomic the rock has string of bits that represent time frame samples of consciousness recordings. So I mean if they were played with the right equipment in a certain way you might be able to extract short consciousness clip recordings. Hey wait a sec - is a string of bits that represents consciousness, conscious? Or does there have to be a victrola. Does time have to be a variable? Hm... John --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
On 6/4/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of the work to date on program generation, macro processing, application configuration via parameters, compilation, assembly, and program optimization has used crisp knowledge representation (i.e. non-probabilistic data structures). Dynamic, feedback based optimizing compilers, such as the Java HotSpot VM, do keep track of program path statistics in order to decide when to inline methods for example. But on the whole, the traditional program development life cycle is free of probabilistic inference. How about these scenarios: 1. If a task is to be repeated 'many' times, use a loop. If only 'a few' times, write it out directly. -- this requires fuzziness 2. The gain of using algorihtm X on this problem is likely to be small. -- requires probability I have a hypothesis that program design (to satisfy requirements), and in general engineering design, can be performed using crisp knowledge representation - with the provision that I will use cognitively-plausible spreading activation instead of, or to cache, time-consuming deductive backchaining. My current work will explore this hypothesis with regard to composing simple programs that compose skills from more primitive skills. I am adapting Gerhard Wickler's Capability Description Languagehttp://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/oplan/cdl/index.htmlto match capabilities (e.g. program composition capabilities) with tasks (e.g. clear a StringBuilder object). CDL conveniently uses a crisp FOL knowledge representation. Herehttp://texai.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/texai/BehaviorLanguage/data/method-definitions.bl?view=markupis a Texai behavior language file that contains capability descriptions for primitive Java compositions. Each of these primitive capabilities is implemented by a Java object that can be persisted in the Texai KB as RDF statements. Maybe you mean spreading activation is used to locate candidate facts / rules, over which actual deductions are attempted? That sounds very promising. One question is how to learn the association between nodes. YKY --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?
John G. Rose wrote: You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve proper non-conscious certification. Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that rocks are not conscious. Everything is belief. Even hard science. That was the nub of Hume's intellectual contribution. It doesn't mean we can't be sure enough. It just means that we can never be 100% sure of *anything*. Of course, there's belief and then there's BELIEF. To me (and to Hume), it's not a difference in kind. It's just that the leap from observational evidence to empirical (natural) belief is a helluvalot shorter than is the leap from observational evidence to supernatural belief. Cheers, Brad Today's words-to-live-by: Everything in moderation. Including moderation. ;-) P.S. Hmmm. The Thunderbird e-mail client spell checker recognizes the word homo but not the word sapiens. It gets better. Here's WordWeb's definition of sapiens: Of or relating to or characteristic of Homo sapiens. Oh. Now I get it! NOT. Sigh... Isn't there some sort of dictionary-writing rule that says you're not allowed to use the word you're defining in the definition of that word? I smell a project! Let's build a dictionary that contains nothing but circular definitions. For example: definition - Of or relating to or characteristic of defining something. From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Excluding the middle, are we? Conscious, not conscious or null? I don't want to put words into Ben company's mouths, but I think what they are trying to do with PLN is to implement a system that expressly *includes the middle*. In theory (but not necessarily in practice) the clue to creating the first intelligent machine may be to *exclude the ends*! Scottish philosopher and economist David Hume argued way back in the 18th century that all knowledge is based on past observation. Because of this, we can never be 100% certain of *anything*. While Hume didn't put it in such terms, as I understand his thinking, it comes down to *everything* is a probability or all knowledge is fuzzy knowledge. There is no such thing as 0. There is no such thing as 1. For example, let's say you are sitting at a table holding a pencil in your hand. In the past, every time you let go of the pencil in this situation (or a similar situation), it dropped to the table. The cause and effect for this behavior is so well documented that we call the underlying principal the *law* of gravity. But, even so, can you say with probability 1.0 that the *next* time you let go of that pencil in a similar situation that it will, in fact, drop to the table? Hume said you can't. As those ads for stock brokerage firms on TV always say in their disclaimers, Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Of course, we are constantly predicting the future based on our knowledge of past events (or others' knowledge of past events which we have learned and believe to be correct). I will, for instance, give you very favorable odds if you are willing to bet against the pencil hitting the table when dropped. Unless you enjoy living life on the edge, your predictions won't stray very far from past experiences (or learned knowledge about past experiences). But, in the end, it's all probability and fuzziness. It is all belief, baby. Yes Hume and Kant actually were making contributions to AGI but didn't' know it. Although I suppose at the time there imaginations where rich and varied enough to where those possibilities were not totally unthinkable. Regarding the issue of consciousness and the rock, there are several possible scenarios to consider here. First, the rock may be conscious but only in a way that can be understood by other rocks. The rock may be conscious but it is unable to communicate with humans (and vice versa) so we assume it's not conscious. The rock is truly conscious and it thinks we're not conscious so it pretends to be just like it thinks we are and, as a result, we're tricked into thinking it's not conscious. Finally, if a rock falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Consciousness may require at least two actors. Think about it. What good would consciousness do you if there was no one else around to appreciate it? Would you, in that case, in fact be conscious? Most humans will treat a rock as if it were not conscious because, in the past, that assumption has proven to be efficacious for predictions involving rocks. I know of no instance where someone was able to talk a rock that was in the
Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL?
YKY said: How about these scenarios: 1. If a task is to be repeated 'many' times, use a loop. If only 'a few' times, write it out directly. -- this requires fuzziness 2. The gain of using algorithm X on this problem is likely to be small. -- requires probability Agreed. When Texai gets to this point I would incorporate an open source fuzzy logic library such as JFuzzyLogic. I believe I can interface the Texai KB to a fuzzy logic library without too much difficulty. Maybe you mean spreading activation is used to locate candidate facts / rules, over which actual deductions are attempted? That sounds very promising. One question is how to learn the association between nodes. To be clear, I would do the opposite. Offline backchaining, deductive inference could be performed to cache conclusions for common inference problems. The cache is implemented via spreading activation links between the antecedent terms of the rules and the consequent terms of the conclusions. Humans do not perform modus ponens deduction from first principles for commonsense problem solving. I believe that spreading activation can be employed to perform machine problem solving (e.g. executing a learned procedure) in a cognitively plausible fashion without real-time theorem proving. Cheers. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 5:29:07 PM Subject: Re: [agi] OpenCog's logic compared to FOL? On 6/4/08, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of the work to date on program generation, macro processing, application configuration via parameters, compilation, assembly, and program optimization has used crisp knowledge representation (i.e. non-probabilistic data structures). Dynamic, feedback based optimizing compilers, such as the Java HotSpot VM, do keep track of program path statistics in order to decide when to inline methods for example. But on the whole, the traditional program development life cycle is free of probabilistic inference. How about these scenarios: 1. If a task is to be repeated 'many' times, use a loop. If only 'a few' times, write it out directly. -- this requires fuzziness 2. The gain of using algorihtm X on this problem is likely to be small. -- requires probability I have a hypothesis that program design (to satisfy requirements), and in general engineering design, can be performed using crisp knowledge representation - with the provision that I will use cognitively-plausible spreading activation instead of, or to cache, time-consuming deductive backchaining. My current work will explore this hypothesis with regard to composing simple programs that compose skills from more primitive skills. I am adapting Gerhard Wickler's Capability Description Language to match capabilities (e.g. program composition capabilities) with tasks (e.g. clear a StringBuilder object). CDL conveniently uses a crisp FOL knowledge representation. Here is a Texai behavior language file that contains capability descriptions for primitive Java compositions. Each of these primitive capabilities is implemented by a Java object that can be persisted in the Texai KB as RDF statements. Maybe you mean spreading activation is used to locate candidate facts / rules, over which actual deductions are attempted? That sounds very promising. One question is how to learn the association between nodes. YKY agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Neurons
Josh, On 6/3/08, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strongly disagree. Computational neuroscience is moving as fast as any field of science has ever moved. Perhaps you are seeing something that I am not. There are ~200 different types of neurons, but no one seems to understand what the ~200 different things are that they have to do. Sure some simple nets are working, but I just don't see the expected leap from this. Computer hardware is improving as fast as any field of technology has ever improved. We have already discussed here how architecture (of commercially available processors) has been in a state of arrested development for ~35 years, with ~1:1 in performance just waiting to be collected. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if neuron-level simulation were necessary to get human-level intelligence. So would I. My point was that some additional understanding, a wiring diagram, etc., would go a LONG way to getting over some of the humps that doubtless lie ahead. The history of AI is littered with those who have underestimated the problems. With reasonable algorithmic optimization, and a few tricks our hardware can do the brain can't (e.g. store sensory experience verbatim and review it as often as necessary into learning algorithms) we should be able to knock 3 orders of magnitude or so off the pure-neuro HEPP estimate -- which puts us at ten high-end graphics cards, e.g. less than the price of a car. (or just wait till 2015 and get one high-end PC). The point of agreement with BOTH of our various estimates is that computer horsepower is NOT a barrier. Figuring out the algorithms is the ONLY thing standing between us and AI. Back to those ~200 different types of neurons. There are probably some cute tricks buried down in their operation, and you probably need to figure out substantially all ~200 of those tricks to achieve human intelligence. If I were an investor, this would sure sound pretty scary to me without SOME sort of insurance like scanning capability, and maybe some simulations. Steve Richfield --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] teme-machines
Hi All, An excellent 20-minute TED talk from Susan Blackmore (she's a brilliant speaker!) http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/269 I considered posting to the singularity list instead, but Blackmore's theoretical talk is much more germane to AGI than any other singularity-related technology. -dave --- 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=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
