Mike,
If memory serves, this thread started out as a discussion about binding in an
AGI context. At some point, the terms "forward-chaining" and
"backward-chaining" were brought up and, then, got used in a weird way (I
thought) as the discussion turned to temporal dependencies and hierarchica
Abram Demski wrote:
For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Loosemore in that your
first description was a bit ambiguous, and it sounded like you were
saying that backward chaining would add facts to the knowledge base,
which would be wrong. But you've cleared up the ambiguity.
I concur: I
The way I see it, on the expert systems front, bayesian networks
replaced the algorithms being currently discussed. These are more
flexible, since they are probabilistic, and also have associated
learning algorithms. For nonprobabilistic systems, the resolution
algorithm is more generally applicabl
For what it is worth, I agree with Richard Loosemore in that your
first description was a bit ambiguous, and it sounded like you were
saying that backward chaining would add facts to the knowledge base,
which would be wrong. But you've cleared up the ambiguity.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:02 AM, Bra
Brad: By definition, an expert system rule base contains the total sum of
the
knowledge of a human expert(s) in a particular domain at a given point in
time. When you use it, that's what you expect to get. You don't expect the
system to modify the rule base at runtime. If everything you need i
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I
hope I didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm
sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of
reasoning has been conflate
>
> 4. http://www.ontotext.com/inference/reasoning_strategies.html
> "* Forward-chaining: to start from the known facts and to perform
> the inference in an inductive fashion. This kind of reasoning can have
> diverse objectives, for instance: to compute the inferred closure; to
> answer a part
:38 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
"Am I correct in this interpretation of what Abram said, and is that
interpretation included in what your Google clippings indicate is the
generally understood
some knowledge on the subject.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lukasz Stafiniak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:05 AM
> To: agi@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
> BI
Jim, Sorry. Obviously I did not understand you. Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:33 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM&quo
on the subject.
-Original Message-
From: Lukasz Stafiniak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:05 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Brad
Brad Paulsen wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I hope
I didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of
reasoning has been conflated with the terms "forward-cha
age-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:38 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
I
started reading a Riesenhuber and Poggio paper and there are some
similarities
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Brad Paulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The terms "forward-chaining" and "backward-chaining" when used to refer to
> reasoning strategies have absolutely nothing to do with temporal
> dependencies or levels of reasoning. These two terms refer simply, and
> only
I've been following this thread pretty much since the beginning. I hope I
didn't miss anything subtle. You'll let me know if I have, I'm sure. ;=)
It appears the need for temporal dependencies or different levels of reasoning
has been conflated with the terms "forward-chaining" (FWC) and
"ba
I'm not questioning logic's elegance, merely its relevance - the intention
is at some point to apply it to the real world in your various systems, no?
Yet there seems to be such a lot of argument and confusion about the most
basic of terms, when you begin to do that. That elegance seems to come
Mike Tintner wrote:
A tangential comment here. Looking at this and other related threads I
can't help thinking: jeez, here are you guys still endlessly arguing
about the simplest of syllogisms, seemingly unable to progress beyond
them. (Don't you ever have that feeling?) My impression is that t
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:38 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
I started reading a Riesenhuber and Poggio paper and there are some
similarities to ideas that I have considered although my
tion in the
network.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Abram Demski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:29 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
Ed Porter wrote:
"I am
CTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: **SPAM** RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND
BY "THE BINDING PROBLEM"?
Mark,
Still fails to deal with what I was discussing. I will leave it up to you
to figure out why.
Ed Porter
-Original
A tangential comment here. Looking at this and other related threads I can't
help thinking: jeez, here are you guys still endlessly arguing about the
simplest of syllogisms, seemingly unable to progress beyond them. (Don't you
ever have that feeling?) My impression is that the fault lies with lo
> If however the same rule were applied to me, I would be able to buy an AGI
> as powerful as Phantom Decoder Ring worth at least a buck.
>
> Ed Porter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:54 AM
>
chard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:54 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
Ed Porter wrote:
> Richard,
>
> You just keep digging yourself in deeper.
>
>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: **SPAM** RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND
BY "THE BINDING PROBLEM"?
Mark,
Since your attack on my statement below is based on nothing but conclusory
statements and contains neither reasoning or evidence to support
I started reading a Riesenhuber and Poggio paper and there are some
similarities to ideas that I have considered although my ideas were explicitly
developed about computer programs that would use symbolic information and are
not neural theories. It is interesting that Risesnhuber and Poggio arg
.
> is simply incorrect. Temporal criteria are *NOT* necessarily relevant to
> forward and backward chaining.
>
> As far as I can tell, Richard is trying to gently correct you and you are
> both incorrect and unwilling to even attempt to interpret his words in the
> way he meant (i
Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
You just keep digging yourself in deeper.
Look at the original email in which you said "This is not correct." The
only quoted text that precedes it is quoted from me. So why are you saying
"Jim's statement was a misunderstanding"?
Okay, looks like some confusion he
poral criteria.
> is simply incorrect. Temporal criteria are *NOT* necessarily relevant to
> forward and backward chaining.
>
> As far as I can tell, Richard is trying to gently correct you and you are
> both incorrect and unwilling to even attempt to interpret his words in the
> way he
ur post immediately below you did neither.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:19 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
Anyone who
r [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:19 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
>> Anyone who reads this thread will know who was being honest and
>> reasonable
and who w
o are more concerned about truth than trying to sound like they know more
than others, particularly when they don't.
Anyone who reads this thread will know who was being honest and reasonable
and who was not.
Ed Porter
-----Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
don't.
Anyone who reads this thread will know who was being honest and reasonable
and who was not.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 7:52 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF
suited to dynamic situations in which conditions are likely to
change.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:42 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BI
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 3:47 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
I have read about half of Shastri's 1999 paper "Advan
the engine
better suited to dynamic situations in which conditions are likely to
change.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:42 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUN
preading of
such binding information to the limited implication paths along which it has
been requested.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:21 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES
I have read about half of Shastri's 1999 paper "Advances in Shruti— A neurally
motivated model of relational knowledge representation and rapid inference
using temporal synchrony" and I see that it he is describing a method of
encoding general information and then using it to do a certain kind o
Jim Bromer wrote:
Ed Porter said:
It should be noted that Shruiti uses a mix of forward changing and backward
chaining, with an architecture for controlling when and how each is used.
...
My understanding that forward reasoning is reasoning from conditions to
consequences, and backward reasonin
Ed Porter said:
It should be noted that Shruiti uses a mix of forward changing and backward
chaining, with an architecture for controlling when and how each is used.
...
My understanding that forward reasoning is reasoning from conditions to
consequences, and backward reasoning is the opposite.
ot enough to solve general
inferences problems of any considerable complexity.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-----
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:13 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND
Jim Bromer wrote:
> #ED PORTERS CURRENT RESPONSE >
> Forward and backward chaining are not hacks. They has been two of the
most
> commonly and often successfully techniques in AI search for at least 30
> years. They are not some sort of wave of the hand. They are much more
> co
> #ED PORTERS CURRENT RESPONSE >
> Forward and backward chaining are not hacks. They has been two of the most
> commonly and often successfully techniques in AI search for at least 30
> years. They are not some sort of wave of the hand. They are much more
> concretely grounded in su
ing many
models to encode bindings implicitly, and --- where such implicit binding is
not practical --- the use of explicit representations of binding, such as a
Shruiti-like synchrony or a numerical representations of binding information
in spreading activation.
-Original Message-
From: Richard L
Ed Porter wrote:
## RICHARD LOOSEMORE WROTE #>>
Now I must repeat what I said before about some (perhaps many?) claimed
solutions to the binding problem: these claimed solutions often
establish the *mechanism* by which a connection could be established IF
THE TWO ITEMS WANT TO
s
that would be involved in human thinking.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:22 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE
BINDING PROBLEM"?
Ed:it is precis
RE: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICAL PROCESSES ARE BOUND BY "THE BINDING
PROBLEM"?Ed:it is precisely because the human brains can do such massive
searches (averaging roughly 3 to 300 trillion/second in the cortex alone) that
lets us so often come up with the appropriate memory or
ngs happen because of complexity (although that is putting
it so crudely as to almost confuse the issue).
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:02 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: FW: [agi] WHAT PORTION OF CORTICA
Ed,
I only have time to look at one small part of your post today...
Ed Porter wrote:
The “Does Mary own a book?” example, once the own relationship is
activated with Mary in the owner slot and “a book” in the owned-object
slot, spreads “?” activation, which asks if there any related
relati
48 matches
Mail list logo
