The Semantic Web, Syllogism, and Worldview
First published November 7, 2003 on the Networks, Economics, and Culture
mailing list.
Clay Shirky
The W3C's Semantic Web project has been described in many ways over the last
few years: an extension of the current web in which information is given
To me, the message of this rant is that the Semantic Web would only be truly
useful in the context of contextual, analogical + inductive +
abductive inference
... rather than purely deductive inference
I agree w/ this
The bigger problem, I think, is that it would take an AGI capable of those
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Applicable to Cyc, NARS, ATM others?
Mike,
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
Mike,
Cyc uses, and my own Texai project will also eventually employ, deductive
reasoning (i.e. modus ponens) as its main inference mechanism. In Cyc, most of
the fallacies that Shirkey points out are avoided by two means - nonmonotonic
(e.g. default) reasoning, and context.
Although I
Steve,
To me, the following two questions are independent of each other:
*. What type of reasoning is needed for AI? The major answers are:
(A): deduction only, (B) multiple types, including deduction,
induction, abduction, analogy, etc.
*. What type of knowledge should be reasoned upon? The
For the people not in http://groups.google.com/group/open-nars :
As part of the open-nars project
(http://code.google.com/p/open-nars/), Joe Geldart has started to make
NARS to work on Semantic Web.
see
http://groups.google.com/group/open-nars/browse_thread/thread/c4f16c0f9c5bdbbc
Pei
On Thu,
Pei,
Given your description, I agree B2 is the way to go. At Cycorp, the inductive
(e.g. rule induction), abductive (e.g. hypothesis generation), and analogical
reasoning engines I observed were all supported by deductive inference. I also
a member of a Cycorp team that collaborated with
Steve,
You are correct --- though the words like induction, abduction,
and analogy are used in many AI systems, under the hood they are
really deduction with minor variations.
For one thing, all non-deductive inference types are uncertain by
definition, so as far as binary logic is used, you
Pei: What type of reasoning is needed for AI? The major answers are:
(A): deduction only, (B) multiple types, including deduction,
induction, abduction, analogy, etc.
Is it fair to say that current AI involves an absence of imaginative
reasoning? - reasoning that is conducted more or
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
On 02/14/2008 06:32 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
The Semantic Web, Syllogism, and Worldview
First published November 7, 2003 on the Networks, Economics, and
Culture mailing list.
Clay Shirky
For an alternate perspective and critique of Shirky's rant, see Paul
Ford's A Response to Clay
Though many people assume reasoning can only been applied to
symbolic or linguistic materials, I'm not convinced yet, nor that
there is really a separate imaginative reasoning --- at least I
haven't seen a concrete proposal on what it means and why it is
different.
For a simple deduction rule {S
Pei: What type of reasoning is needed for AI? The major answers are:
(A): deduction only, (B) multiple types, including deduction,
induction, abduction, analogy, etc.
And the other thing that AI presumably lacks currently - this sounds so
obvious as to be almost silly to say, but I can't
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Hi Mike,
P.S. I also came across this lesson that AGI forecasting must stop (I used
to make similar mistakes elsewhere).
We've been at it since mid-1998, and we estimate that within 1-3 years from
the time I'm writing this (March 2001), we will complete the creation of a
program that
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everyone is talking about observation as if it is PASSIVE - as if you just
record the world and THEN you start reasoning.
Mike: I really hope you can stop making this kind of claim, for your own sake.
For what people
Pei: Though many people assume reasoning can only been applied to
symbolic or linguistic materials, I'm not convinced yet, nor that
there is really a separate imaginative reasoning --- at least I
haven't seen a concrete proposal on what it means and why it is
different.
I should be supplying
You don't need to keep my busy --- I'm already too busy to continue
this discussion.
I don't have all the answers to your questions. For the ones I do have
answers, I'm afraid I don't have the time to explain them to your
satisfaction.
Pei
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL
On 14/02/2008, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who knows what we might have achieved had that level of dedication actually
continued for 4-7 more years?
This kind of frustration is familiar to most inventors, and probably
most people on this list. Likewise I'm pretty sure that if I had
Pei,
A misunderstanding. My point was not about the psychology of
observation/vision. I understand well that psychology and philosophy are
increasingly treating it as more active/reasoned and implicitly referenced
Noe. My point is that *AI* and *AGI* treat observation as if it is passive
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pei,
A misunderstanding. My point was not about the psychology of
observation/vision. I understand well that psychology and philosophy are
increasingly treating it as more active/reasoned and implicitly referenced
21 matches
Mail list logo
