Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/8/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > C'mon, the brain is not so dumb.> > Which is precisely why it does not retain patterns more complex than > is strictly necessary to get the job done.  The most efficient> representation of pi, for almost all practical purposes, is as a>

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/7/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the beginning, I also believed that first-order predicate logic> (FOPL) plus probability theory and fuzzy logic is the way to go, like> many others in the field. It is only after I ran into many problems, > that I began to build my alternative,

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On Aug 7, 2006, at 3:30 AM, Yan King Yin wrote: On 8/7/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or even more likely that his definition is a memorized sequence of > digits. C'mon, the brain is not so dumb. Which is precisely why it does not retain patterns more complex than is str

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Yan King Yin wrote: On 8/7/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Yan King Yin wrote: > > Suppose a person has a definition of pi in his mind, but we don't > > know if it's the correct one. But if he succeeds in telling us >

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/7/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/6/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you just want an advanced production system, why bother to build > your own, but not to simply use Soar or ACT-R? Both of them allow you > to define your own rules. Indeed, when Allen Newell d

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/7/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Yan King Yin wrote:> > Suppose a person has a definition of pi in his mind, but we don't > > know if it's the correct one.  But if he succeeds in telling us> > many digits of pi that are correct, then it is over

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/6/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you just want an advanced production system, why bother to build> your own, but not to simply use Soar or ACT-R? Both of them allow you > to define your own rules. Indeed, when Allen Newell designed Soar, he's meant it to be a "unified cognitive

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/6/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the one thing I am not so sure of:  I think the idea of> "predicate logic" carries a lot of baggage with it, which is likely to> cause systems built that way to have convergence problems (decreasing > stability and intelligence as

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On Aug 5, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Yan King Yin wrote: Suppose a person has a definition of pi in his mind, but we don't know if it's the correct one. But if he succeeds in telling us many digits of pi that are correct, then it is overwhelmingly likely that he has got the correct definition, rath

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Yan King Yin wrote: I'm not sure what exactly are your ideas for the mechanisms of "model" and "constraints", but in an AGI I think we can simply use predicate logic (or equivalently, conceptual graphs) to represent thoughts. I'd even go further to say that the brain actually uses /symbolic/

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

If you just want an advanced production system, why bother to build your own, but not to simply use Soar or ACT-R? Both of them allow you to define your own rules. Pei On 8/5/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Indeed, the AGI model that I have in mind is basically a production-rule sy

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/6/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the brain is actually quite smart, perhaps due to intense selection> > for intelligence over a long period of time dating back to fishes.  I> > suspect that the brain actually has an internal representation somewhat > > similar to predica

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/6/06, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I too am a little puzzled by Ben's reservations here.> > Is it because Yan implied that the rule would be applied literally, and > therefore it would be fragile (e.g. there might be a case where the> threshold for "significantly" was miss

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/5/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why is that impossible?  It doesn't violate Godel's theorem, if that's what you have in mind.  In practice, inconsistencies may exist because the knowledgebase is huge.  So let me not insist that consistency is required. I believe formal systems i

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/5/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the brain is actually quite smart, perhaps due to intense selection for intelligence over a long period of time dating back to fishes. I suspect that the brain actually has an internal representation somewhat similar to predicate logic.

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/6/06, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not strange at all.  The brain had a long evolutionary history before> language was ever created.  Languages are attempts to model parts of the> organization of the brain (and NOT attempts at a complete modeling). > Therefore it's reasonabl

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Yan King Yin wrote: ... 2. If you think your method is better, the mechanism underlying your rule might be more complex than predicate logic. That's kind of strange. YKY Not strange at all. The brain had a long evolutionary history before language was ever created. Languages are attempts t

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Yan King Yin wrote: On 8/5/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: No. IMO, a simple rule like this does not correctly capture human usage of qualifiers across contexts, and is not adequate for AI purposes Perhaps this rule is a decent high-level approx

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/5/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now, figuring out all the heuristical NTV / symbolic qualifier's update rules, such that an AGI will always be internally consistent, and provably increasing in accuracy, is a very non-trivial task. > > Well indeed it is of course impossib

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/5/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No.  IMO, a simple rule like this does not correctly capture human> usage of qualifiers across contexts, and is not adequate for AI > purposes> > Perhaps this rule is a decent high-level approximation, but AGI> requires better...   1. Can yo

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

No. IMO, a simple rule like this does not correctly capture human usage of qualifiers across contexts, and is not adequate for AI purposes Perhaps this rule is a decent high-level approximation, but AGI requires better... -- Ben On 8/4/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben:

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Ben:   > This kind of simple heuristic is not generally workable, though it may> work OK in some circumstances.  Of course, this kind of thing has been> tried before many times by others over the last decades. > > IMO this kind of rule cannot effectively be programmed into a system,> if one wants

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/4/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now, figuring out all the heuristical NTV / symbolic qualifier's update rules, such that an AGI will always be internally consistent, and provably increasing in accuracy, is a very non-trivial task. Well indeed it is of course impossible, no matter

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Ben: I think the problem of contextuality may be solved like this: Examples: John and Mary have many kids. (like, 10) This Chinese restuarant has many customers. (like 100s) Many people in Africa have AIDs. (like 10s of millions) so I propose a rule like this: IF n is significantly > the

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

  Let me reply to everyone here...   Pei:  You said non-numeric heuristics (such as endorsement theory) may run into problems.  Yes, but I believe those problems can be solved using further heuristics (eg see wikipedia article on Nixon diamond).  If you resolve the Nixon diamond by referring to pro

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Pei I think we are very much in agreement, though perhaps our main difference is in the emphasis, and the exact role played by the numerical truth value I certainly want to emphasize that I think this *is* calculated sometimes. (And I agree that it is not really equivalent to a probabil

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Hi, It's easy enough to write out algebraic rules for manipulating fuzzy qualifiers like "very likely", "may", and so forth. It may well be that the human mind uses abstract, intuitive, algebraic-like rules for manipulating these, instead of or in parallel to more quantitative methods... Howeve

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Such an approach has been tried by non-monotonic logics and endorsement theory, and it works for some domain-specific problems. For AGI, however, it will run into problems like multiple inheritances --- almost all empirical knowledge is "normally true", so when there are conflicts among them (as i

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/4/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The real alternative of numerical truth value is to stay with binary> logic, which will make things even worse.   What I propose is to use symbolic, qualitative modifiers.  For example: 1.  this harddrive may be defective 2.  this harddrive is very

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

YKY: (1) Your worry about the Bayesian approach is reasonable, but it is not the only possible way to use numerical truth value --- even Ben will agree with me here. ;-) (2) Accuracy is not a big problem, but if you do some experiments on incremental learning, you will soon see that 1-2 digits a

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Richard, Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. I actually agree with most what you wrote, though I don't think it is inconsistent with my point, that is, beliefs do need numerical truth values. Let me explain briefly (I have to leave soon). In an AGI system (as least in mine), a b

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/4/06, Yan King Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   I tend to agree with Richard's view and I may build an AGI with symbolic, non-numerical inference. Well, I think AGI will have to be able to handle numbers _as well as_ complex symbolic structures, just as humans do. I don't think either is a sub

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

  I tend to agree with Richard's view and I may build an AGI with symbolic, non-numerical inference.   1.  As Russell pointed out, if the priors are not known or are in extremely low precision, Bayes rule is not very applicable.  Number crunching with priors of 1-2 bits precision is "garbage in, ga

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, folks. I have a few replies. Pei Wang wrote: No matter how bad fuzzy logic is, it cannot be responsible for the past failures of AI --- fuzzy logic has never been popular in the AI community. Oh, no doubt about it: but fuzzy logic by itself was not the r

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/3/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When you think something is "more likely" or "less likely", you'retranslating a feeling into English.  The English translation doesn'tinvolve verbal probabilities like "0.6" or " 0.8" - the syllables"probability zero point eight" don't flow

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

When you think something is "more likely" or "less likely", you're translating a feeling into English. The English translation doesn't involve verbal probabilities like "0.6" or "0.8" - the syllables "probability zero point eight" don't flow through your auditory workspace. But that doesn't r

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

YKY 1) I agree that the brain's probabilistic reasoning does not involve high-precision calculations, but rather rough heuristic estimations 2) Of course, the brain has a LOT of stuff going on internally that is not accessible to consciousness In very many ways our unconscious brains are sm

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

  I think Richard's point is interesting.   I think the brain probably does NOT do implicit probabilities, at least not with high precisions.  If it does, I see no reason why such information is not available to consciousness.   The brain probably performs inference using categories like "some", "

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Richard, Thus, if asked "Would you say that having eight pigs in a suburban home could be described as 'many pigs'?", only the stupidest kind of AGI would simply operate on a couple of probabilities, then spit out the result Yes [P=0.8] or Yes [0.6 < P < 0.8], and then perhaps translate that res

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

No matter how bad fuzzy logic is, it cannot be responsible for the past failures of AI --- fuzzy logic has never been popular in the AI community. Actually, numerical approaches have been criticized and rejected by similar reasons from the very beginning, until the coming of the Bayesian approach.

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Fuzzy logic is a bad idea, not so much because we have not found good ways to do the combinatorics of fuzziness, but because, I believe, it is fundamentally inappropriate to view cognition as a set of processes that are primarily driven by (a) the kind of representations inherent in the proba

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Yeah, and I'd think modifiers like "many" are easily handled by a probability distribution determined by the context over integers. Easily at least in theory that is since the details of choosing an appropriate distribution in any given context might be a bit tricky. Right, but the question is,

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

On 8/3/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,On 8/2/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Short answer: (1) AGI needs to allow fuzzy concept, and to handle> fuzziness properly,Agreed: e.g. fuzzy modifiers like more, very, many, some etc. must behandled by an AGI systemYeah, and I'd thi

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Hi, On 8/2/06, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Short answer: (1) AGI needs to allow fuzzy concept, and to handle fuzziness properly, Agreed: e.g. fuzzy modifiers like more, very, many, some etc. must be handled by an AGI system, along with fuzzy membership statements like "Fido is a membe

Re: [agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

Short answer: (1) AGI needs to allow fuzzy concept, and to handle fuzziness properly, (2) probability theory, in its typical form, is not the right tool for it, (3) fuzzy logic, though is specially designed for this problem, and therefore more proper than probability theory, has its own limitation

[agi] fuzzy logic necessary?

  I'd like to know your views on fuzzy logic.  Does AGI need to implement fuzzy inference mechanisms or are they subsumed by probability theory?   Proponents of fuzzy logic says that fuzzy is not the same as probabilistic (which, of course, is true).  But the question is whether a good AGI can be b