Reasoning v. other AI stuff
Arthur T. Murray
AI4U textbook of artificial intelligence (q.v.) distinguishes
between imagistic and syllogistic reasoning.
Acme Debugging
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/ai4udex.html#reasoning in the
>
> AI4U textbook of artificial intelligence (q.v.) distinguishes
>
> between imagistic and syllogistic reasoning.
Seems like a worthy (introductory?) book on AI. I am unfamiliar with
imagistic reasoning. Is this analogous to the logic of music, or the
"logical" interpretation thereof?
I saw nothing on the integration of logic and probability which is a
necessary condition to the first-step AI reasoner as defined in this
thread.
Thanks,
Larry
Randall R Schulz
It's not new. Extensive research has already been done on so-called
"qualitative reasoning." This includes diagrammatic and analogic
reasoning, e.g.
My library includes this title:
"Diagrammatic Reasoning; Cognitive and Computational Perspectives"
Ed. Janice Glasgow, N. Hari Narayanan, B. CHandrasekaran
Pub. AAAI Press / The MIT Press
ISBN 0-262-57112-9
I also know of the "Qualitative Reasoning Group" at Northwestern
(<http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/>).
Though I'm unaware of specifics, there's much more going on. Just search
the Web for "Qualitative Reasoning" or other related topic phrases.
Randall Schulz
Acme Debugging
> It's not new. Extensive research has already been done on so-called
> "qualitative reasoning." This includes diagrammatic and analogic
> reasoning, e.g.
Thanks for the references. Actually, I'm not looking for any logic
system, just saying that logic used in most real-world reasoning
needs to incorporate probability. I think different logic(s) will be
needed for different types of questions. I would favor just a few
simple probability calculations in a first-step reasoner, though it
might run out of applications pretty fast.
Agree it's nothing new.
Larry
Eray Ozkural exa
> Thanks for the references. Actually, I'm not looking for any logic
> system, just saying that logic used in most real-world reasoning
> needs to incorporate probability. I think different logic(s) will be
> needed for different types of questions. I would favor just a few
> simple probability calculations in a first-step reasoner, though it
> might run out of applications pretty fast.
Note that multi-valued logic is equivalent in power to classical
logic. That _naturally_ includes fuzzy logic. So the answer to your
question must necessarily lie elsewhere....
Thanks,
Acme Debugging
> L.F...@lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) wrote in message news:<35fae540.03043...@posting.google.com>...
> > Thanks for the references. Actually, I'm not looking for any logic
> > system, just saying that logic used in most real-world reasoning
> > needs to incorporate probability. I think different logic(s) will be
> > needed for different types of questions. I would favor just a few
> > simple probability calculations in a first-step reasoner, though it
> > might run out of applications pretty fast.
>Note that multi-valued logic is equivalent in power to classical
>logic. That _naturally_ includes fuzzy logic.
Understand this part.
> So the answer to your
>question must necessarily lie elsewhere....
Don't understand this part. Could you repeat the question?
Thanks,
Larry
George Dance
> Thanks for the references. Actually, I'm not looking for any logic
> system, just saying that logic used in most real-world reasoning
> needs to incorporate probability. I think different logic(s) will be
> needed for different types of questions. I would favor just a few
> simple probability calculations in a first-step reasoner, though it
> might run out of applications pretty fast.
>
> Agree it's nothing new.
>
> Larry
Well, classical logic can give you no more than conclusions that are
as true (or as certain) as your premises; if your premises have a
probability of less than 1, so will your conclusion. But it can give
you conclusions that are *as true* as your premises, and that's a
pretty
Learning classical logic allows you to discover valid wff and valid
inferences. As a valid wff is always true, it (and all its
substitution inferences) have a probability of 1 of being true.
For instance, let's say that you want to know whether your wife is
home, or if she went out. So your mind works:
1. Either my wife is at home, or she's not at home. (LEM)
2. I can't see my wife, and she doesn't answer when I call her.
(direct experience)
3. If 2 is true, then it is false my wife is at home.
4. If my wife is not at home, she's gone out. (by definition)
----------------------------------
5. My wife has gone out. 2,3,4 HS
Step 1 is valid, so it has a probability of 1. 2 is not valid, but
it's something you know directly and basically; so you'd likely assign
it a probability of 1, as well.
3 is not valid, as it could be false in some models (your wife could
be unconscious in a closet or something), but it has a pretty high
probability; so you might assign it a probability of .9.
4 is valid, on the assumption that having 'gone out' is the same thing
as 'not being at home'. So it gets another 1.
And the rules HS, by which you concluded 5, is also valid, so it gets
another 1.
So you know the probabilities of 1,2,3,4, and HS, a all being true
separately; and if you multiply them, you get the probability of all
being true at once.
So you multiply (1x1x.9x1x1) and conclude that there is a probability
of .9 that your wife has gone out.
I'm sure you're thinking, "Well, duh!". This is a pretty obvious
inference.
But that's why I used it as an example. More complex chains of
reasoning, using different premises of different degrees of
probability, work in exactly the same way.
Eray Ozkural exa
> > So the answer to your
> >question must necessarily lie elsewhere....
>
> Don't understand this part. Could you repeat the question?
>
I think incorporating probabilities into a reasoner is not sufficient
by itself, but I don't know what the "ultimate reasoner" is :) It's
probably "common-sense reasoner"!
Acme Debugging
> L.F...@lycos.co.uk (Acme Debugging) wrote in message news:<35fae540.03043...@posting.google.com>...
> Well, classical logic can give you no more than conclusions that are
> as true (or as certain) as your premises; if your premises have a
> probability of less than 1, so will your conclusion. But it can give
> you conclusions that are *as true* as your premises, and that's a
> pretty ... [Usenet or your poster chopped this here].
I didn't make the connection in your post with the references, but
now I remember you from sci.logic. You have the knack of bridging
the academic with the real-world (or maybe just willing to suffer the
embarrassment? ;-) Anyway, I would like you for a logic instructor.
> 1. Either my wife is at home, or she's not at home. (LEM)
> 2. I can't see my wife, and she doesn't answer when I call her.
> (direct experience)
> 3. If 2 is true, then it is false my wife is at home.
> 4. If my wife is not at home, she's gone out. (by definition)
> ----------------------------------
> 5. My wife has gone out. 2,3,4 HS
<snip the assignment of probabilities to the above>
> So you multiply (1x1x.9x1x1) and conclude that there is a probability
> of .9 that your wife has gone out.
I would like to add one more probability calc to round out the picture,
then make two comments. Let's say there is a .8 chance my wife's
boyfriend will come to town, and if he does there is a .7 chance she
will sneak off into the night to see him. Now assuming these two
arguments are completely independent, but coincidentally share
the same conclusion, the probability of the conclusion rises above
the probability in either argument alone.
My first comment is that there seems no need of a logic system
to put this on a computer, classical or otherwise. All one needs
is necessary and sufficient condition, or simple objective logic,
usually illustrated with Venn diagrams. Throw in some real world
examples of sets of things, and I think you have all the logic
needed to derive these simple probability calculations as well,
which calculations are more-or-less apparently sufficient
for how brains reason intuitively or at least what I do "in my head"
to successfully navigate life. I see no reason to use a more
complex system when this suffices for my narrow problem
definition of a first-step reasoner. Though, as I stated, you
might run out of applications pretty fast and need to add
various complex systems to answer some types of questions.
Second, while this logic works in an academic sense, and the
probability also works in an academic sense, the two don't
work on a computer in those real-world situations that would
satisfy my test of "useful and surprising" for a first-step reasoner.
Nobody should waste any time putting them on a computer
unless and until some other issues are resolved.
There is a rat's nest of logic behind the probabilities, which I
think is best expressed for AI application as needing to know
something about the question before you ask it. What you
know about the question determines where and how to ask it,
and how meaningful the answer is. Too keep it grounded in
the real world, and because it seems sufficient, I think this logic
is best analyzed in real-world argumentation. The logic or
meaning behind each different real-world example seems to
be particular to the example, and it seems an impasse to
generalize that logic in such a way that it would work on a
computer and still give you something "useful and surprising."
Larry
P.S. How do you know so much about my wife?
Acme Debugging
[restoring edited content]
>>>> Thanks for the references. Actually, I'm not looking for any
logic
>>>> system, just saying that logic used in most real-world reasoning
>>>> needs to incorporate probability. I think different logic(s) will
be
>>>> needed for different types of questions. I would favor just a few
>>>> simple probability calculations in a first-step reasoner, though
it
>>>> might run out of applications pretty fast.
>>>Note that multi-valued logic is equivalent in power to classical
>>>logic. That _naturally_ includes fuzzy logic.
>>Understand this part.
>>>So the answer to your
>>>question must necessarily lie elsewhere....
>> Don't understand this part. Could you repeat the question?
> I think incorporating probabilities into a reasoner is not sufficient
> by itself,
"Sufficient" to what? My narrow problem definition or ... the
provocative statement I made in my opening post about waiting for the
reasoner to answer our AI questions (which I've redundantly stated was
not serious) ... or the definition you seemed to make earlier in the
thread of answering any possible question?
You seem to have inferred a question I didn't ask in the earlier post,
and now make this ambiguous comment. Are you poking fun at good ol'
simple-minded Larry? If so it is well-deserved as I have poked a
little fun at you too.
I've avoided much investment in the first-step reasoner idea, and
avoided specifics purposely to promote open-ended criticism. The
multi-valued/ fuzzy /qualitative, etc. logics, and whatever my schemes
are insufficient for, may yet have relevance to my narrow problem
definition. Perhaps you would glance over my post just sent to George
Dance if you have the time and inclination, as I would value your
comments.
> but I don't know what the "ultimate reasoner" is :) It's
> probably "common-sense reasoner"!
Of course you know I never thought to produce an "ultimate reasoner."
If I did, it would go far beyond "common sense." But I think you may
again be poking a little fun.
Larry
Eray Ozkural exa
> avoided specifics purposely to promote open-ended criticism. The
> multi-valued/ fuzzy /qualitative, etc. logics, and whatever my schemes
> are insufficient for, may yet have relevance to my narrow problem
> definition. Perhaps you would glance over my post just sent to George
> Dance if you have the time and inclination, as I would value your
> comments.
I may have been confused over what the original question was, sorry.
Sincerely,
__
Eray
Herman Jurjus
"Acme Debugging" <L.F...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:35fae540.03050...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
>
> My first comment is that there seems no need of a logic system
> to put this on a computer, classical or otherwise. All one needs
> is necessary and sufficient condition, or simple objective logic,
> usually illustrated with Venn diagrams. Throw in some real world
> examples of sets of things, and I think you have all the logic
> needed to derive these simple probability calculations as well,
Can you explain to me what you mean when you say "no need of a logic
system"?
And what the relevance is of that remark?
Many people can reason, even when they don't know any formalism of classical
logic.
That doesn't mean, however, that constructing or studying such a logic is
meaningless or useless.
When someone has discovered a good and efficient alternative reasoning
methodology, and wants to explain it to the world, i would prefer a logical
formalism over a computer program. Much clearer. Wouldn't you?
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Acme Debugging
> "Acme Debugging" <L.F...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:35fae540.03050...@posting.google.com...
>"Acme Debugging" <L.F...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:35fae540.03050...@posting.google.com...
>[snip]
>>
>> My first comment is that there seems no need of a logic system
>> to put this on a computer, classical or otherwise. All one needs
>> is necessary and sufficient condition, or simple objective logic,
>> usually illustrated with Venn diagrams. Throw in some real world
>> examples of sets of things, and I think you have all the logic
>> needed to derive these simple probability calculations as well,
>
>Can you explain to me what you mean when you say "no need of a logic
>system"?
An academic logic system, like you learn in Logic 101, is not required
for a human to use logic or probability, or for a computer to work
(that you buy already logicked up by academic logicians (!) among
others).
>And what the relevance is of that remark?
Finding a system that is proven to work in wide application (i.e. what
brains do naturally, as you say next). Finding the simplest tool to do
a job, which is a first-step AI reasoner with one logic to start it
off for testing. Finding logic relevant to AI reasoning, with human
reasoning being our best example.
>Many people can reason, even when they don't know any formalism of
classical
>logic.
>That doesn't mean, however, that constructing or studying such a
logic is
>meaningless or useless.
I hope I didn't imply that. I didn't intend to. I don't think I did. I
apologize if I did. In any case, it's worth saying twice: academic
logic is neither meaningless nor useless. At one time I ate, drank,
slept, and wrote a book about it. At Christmas most of my presents
were logic puzzle books (Drat!). I've forgotten most of it, and it
wasn't easy! I liked computers better, and they showed me how flawed
most human logic really is (bugs), and I thought, "All those
philosophy books, and they've never been run even one time!"
>When someone has discovered a good and efficient alternative
reasoning
>methodology, and wants to explain it to the world, i would prefer a
logical
>formalism over a computer program. Much clearer. Wouldn't you?
Depends on the purpose. If my life or bank account depended on it, I
would want something I can see works in the environment where I intend
to use it. If the only way I could see that it worked was to put it on
a computer, then I would want to put it on a computer. But if the
penalty for being wrong was only to get a poor grade on a test, or
suffer some embarrassment in a newsgroup, then I would only need
"logical formalism" which in the context of your question I take to
mean seeing it work on a piece of paper. Your question doesn't seem to
raise the issue of academic logics that are shown to work in specific
applications, like fuzzy logic, etc.
Regarding experience as a test of fact, I once spent 2 years
implementing a system derived from textbooks - lots of them including
everything published on the intended application. Everything in the
textbooks worked great! Too great! In the end the system proved
useless. Only because one simple sentence was missing in all those
textbooks (statistics). It was a very "logical" type of sentence. The
reason it was missing was because nobody had used it for that purpose,
or the ones who had weren't talking. Doesn't matter. Textbooks give
you the list of things to try, no more, just like google. Even very
"empirical" books about what other people saw (like UFO books - I rest
my case!). They do not give you facts. Direct experience gives you
facts (or math or very simple, compelling, and SHORT logic). One is no
more important than the other - but (given the important purpose) one
is no good without the other. Great counter example - development of
the A-bomb.
OT Note: I apologize for the negative tone. This discussion has some
history of which you are probably unaware, which history bears on
these questions. I just noticed all this cross-posting. Anybody who
reads my posts knows I am very serious about what my questions or
comments are, where I ask them, and how I ask them. In this thread,
they were intended to be asked in comp.ai.philosophy. I traced the
thread on google and find that the cross-posts started with the post
on 4/27 by Arthur T. Murray, which post consisted mainly of a link to
his web-site (his own book) and one sentence which I found to bear
little relevance to the thread. Sounds like spam to me, though I am
ready to be corrected. Anyone can look at the message and tell me if
it looks like something that needs to be crossposted to all these
groups. However, it's my responsibility to notice cross-posting in my
replies and I failed to notice, so the fault for any confusion this
discussion generates is ultimately mine, I guess :-( I don't intend
to cross-post again. If anyone has interest in this thread, I invite
them to visit comp.ai.philosophy.
I don't know anything for sure (obviously). Anything I say is only a
proposition, anxiously awaiting refutation.
Thanks for your interest Herman,
Larry
Lester Zick
It may be possible to describe an alternative logical formalism. But
implementation on a computer in the form of a program has a certain
mechanical appeal. It doesn't necessarily imply that the latter is
more valid, but it does suggest that we would have defined something
that really works outside the context of the human mind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Regards - Lester
remove DEL in address for email
Herman Jurjus
"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3eb6e4a6...@netnews.att.net...
Sure. Implementations are fun (and are important, as well). I would even go
further, and say that a logical formalism intended for AI is no good if
there is no chance that an implementation will ever be found.
But the point i tried to make was that having *only* a computer program
would be of limited interest.
After all, it is *understanding* of rationality and reasoning that is most
valuable. Computer languages come and go.
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Herman Jurjus
BTW, just FYI: there is a subject called 'non-monotonic logic'. It has been
studied since the early 1980s.
Numerous approaches have been suggested, including but not restricted to,
probabilistic ones (several!).
But coming back to the discussion:
It seems we have a little misunderstaning here. I keep reading in your
posts: "having a logical formalism is not relevant; having a program is".
My point was not that having a program is not relevant, but that it is not
enough. You want more, namely understanding. It is quite possible to write
complex programs that perform fantastic tasks. But what good is it, if it
remains a black box?
[snip]
> >When someone has discovered a good and efficient alternative
> reasoning
> >methodology, and wants to explain it to the world, i would prefer a
> logical
> >formalism over a computer program. Much clearer. Wouldn't you?
>
> Depends on the purpose.
The purpose is *understanding* rationality and reasoning. What else? :-)
If my life or bank account depended on it, I
> would want something I can see works in the environment where I intend
> to use it. If the only way I could see that it worked was to put it on
> a computer, then I would want to put it on a computer.
Oh. But when it really matters, i'd rather think for myself, than putting my
fate in the hands of *any* computer program. :-D
[snip]
> Your question doesn't seem to
> raise the issue of academic logics that are shown to work in specific
> applications, like fuzzy logic, etc.
Well, there is a number of sentiments in those areas that i fail to
understand.
One comment i often hear, when some new formalism is being presented, is:
"for this, you don't need a new logic, it is 'just probability', or 'just
heuristics'"
Almost as if making a different logic is an indecent proposal of some kind.
I'm still trying to figure out what is behind these sentiments.
> OT Note: I apologize for the negative tone. This discussion has some
> history of which you are probably unaware, which history bears on
> these questions.
[snip]
Oh. In that case, let me be the one that apologizes.
> ready to be corrected. Anyone can look at the message and tell me if
> it looks like something that needs to be crossposted to all these
> groups.
Well, yes, pretty much so. I've removed only one ng.
However, it's my responsibility to notice cross-posting in my
> replies and I failed to notice, so the fault for any confusion this
> discussion generates is ultimately mine, I guess :-( I don't intend
> to cross-post again. If anyone has interest in this thread, I invite
> them to visit comp.ai.philosophy.
No, no, by all means keep sci.logic in. ;-)
> I don't know anything for sure (obviously). Anything I say is only a
> proposition, anxiously awaiting refutation.
Same for me.
BTW, perhaps i should apologize for the tone of my post, also. It wasn't
meant as an attack, at all.
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
Arthur T. Murray
>
> [...] Implementations are fun (and are important, as well).
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/jsaimind.html -- AI implemented.
> I would even go further, and say that a logical formalism
> intended for AI is no good if there is no chance that an
> implementation will ever be found.
http://www.cis.temple.edu/~pwang/203-AI/Lecture/203-1126.htm --
a whole list of Unified AI Systems.
>
> But the point i tried to make was that having *only*
> a computer program would be of limited interest.
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html -- How the Mind Works.
> After all, it is *understanding* of rationality and reasoning
> that is most valuable. Computer languages come and go.
Lisp has primacy in AI.
>
> Cheers,
> Herman Jurjus
Lester Zick
<h.ju...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
Actually, I quite agree with you. The whole problem right now with
respect to computer implementations is that nobody quite understands
what they are implementing. The mechanics don't really amount to much
if there is no underlying design. We can make machines do anything.
The real question is whether we can make them see, hear, and think in
the ways we do.
But if we can achieve a decent analytical understanding of the actual
nature of reasoning and rationality etc. then I think we have to
consider machine implementation as the capstone of the theory in order
to assure that what we suggest in mechanical terms is really
implementable in mechanical terms.
Lester Zick
wrote:
Perhaps, but LISP has been around a lot longer than AI. So far as I
have been able to tell, all we have in terms of computerized AI are so
many speculations and claims that certain kinds of processing
correspond to human reason and other cognitive faculties.
Eray Ozkural exa
> Perhaps, but LISP has been around a lot longer than AI. So far as I
> have been able to tell, all we have in terms of computerized AI are so
> many speculations and claims that certain kinds of processing
> correspond to human reason and other cognitive faculties.
>
My PL book says otherwise:
"John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky formed MIT's Artificial Intelligence
Project in 1958. In 1958-1959, McCarthy designed LISP, which became
operational in 1959. McCarthy also served on the ALGOL design team."
The web is full of colorful descriptions of how the first LISP
interpreter was bootstrapped (or should be full of!)
Know thy language!!!!
__
Eray (exa) Ozkural <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Lester Zick
wrote:
>lester...@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3eb7cfd4...@netnews.att.net>...
>> Perhaps, but LISP has been around a lot longer than AI. So far as I
>> have been able to tell, all we have in terms of computerized AI are so
>> many speculations and claims that certain kinds of processing
>> correspond to human reason and other cognitive faculties.
>>
>
>
>My PL book says otherwise:
>"John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky formed MIT's Artificial Intelligence
>Project in 1958. In 1958-1959, McCarthy designed LISP, which became
>operational in 1959. McCarthy also served on the ALGOL design team."
So, unless we assume that actual AI applicaitions emerged at the same
time, they would have to have emerged later.
>
>The web is full of colorful descriptions of how the first LISP
>interpreter was bootstrapped (or should be full of!)
The history of computing is full of fascinating stories. I don't think
the problem is one of language. I could program the application in
COBOL if I fully understood the application. It's always been amusing
to consider the confusion of application and language. We don't really
have any idea, that I'm aware of, of the best language for AI. All we
actually know are the claims of various scientists and programmers.
>
>Know thy language!!!!
>
Actually, I know several. And I'm still waiting for the optimal AI
programming language.
>__
>Eray (exa) Ozkural <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Regards - Lester
Eray Ozkural exa
> So, unless we assume that actual AI applicaitions emerged at the same
> time, they would have to have emerged later.
uh? you mean "although they founded AI field, their work doesn't count
as AI" that would be rubbish so maybe you mean something else? *sigh*
Lester Zick
wrote:
>lester...@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3eb862c5...@netnews.att.net>...
AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
conceptual problems.
Wolf Kirchmeir
>AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
?????
Data, please.
--
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON
"Not that brains are everything --
you'll also need a skull to put them in." (Nancy Franklin, 1997)
Herman Jurjus
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwol...@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbp...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>
> >AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
>
> ?????
>
> Data, please.
In some way, Leibniz was already doing AI. And he had predecessors: Ramon
Lull and (with a bit of handwaving) even the logicians during the scholastic
period. So, in a way Aristotle started the subject... ;-) )
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
David Longley
<h.ju...@hetnet.nl> writes
Which is also the date I would take for the de-cognitivization of
reasoning.
--
David Longley
Jochen Schmidt
Thats a bit of a stretch...
The term "AI" is indeed very young and was invented from "those scientists
and programmers".
The idea behind AI - the creation of an intelligent artificial system - is
not what was behind the intentions of aristotle and others mentioned in
this thread. More historically interesting in this part are maybe Charles
Babbage and Ada Byron.
AI is _not_ a field to only reason about the human mind - reasoning about
the human mind is only the mean not the goal.
ciao,
Jochen Schmidt
Lester Zick
<wwol...@sympatico.can> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>
>>AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages.
>
>?????
>
>Data, please.
Here you have me. Just a bald unsubstantiated impression based on
various forms of technological insight and innovation over certainly
the last couple of hundred years from zombies to Frankenstein to
robots. Perhaps, I should have said ai instead of AI. I know where the
term robot comes from but not the term AI.
>
>
>
>--
>Best Wishes,
>Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON
>"Not that brains are everything --
>you'll also need a skull to put them in." (Nancy Franklin, 1997)
>
>
Regards - Lester
Eray Ozkural exa
>
> AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
> with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
> assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
> conceptual problems.
>
It wasn't called AI then. We are talking about the term "Artificial
Intelligence" and there is a certain date at which the term was
conceived, and there is another date at which LISP was conceived. AI
came before LISP, but NOT a lot longer than computer languages if you
consider Plankalkul a PL.
Are you smoking crack?
First you say LISP has been around a lot longer than AI, and then you
say AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages? Whatever
you are smoking please give it to me. (I mean what you are saying
isn't funny or stimulating in any way)
AI obviously isn't simply renaming mathematics or philosophy of mind.
__
exa
Lester Zick
wrote:
>lester...@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3eb9b6bd...@netnews.att.net>...
>>
>> AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages. It is only
>> with emergence of the latter, that scientists and programmers made the
>> assumption that digital circuits and stored programs solved their
>> conceptual problems.
>>
>
>It wasn't called AI then. We are talking about the term "Artificial
>Intelligence" and there is a certain date at which the term was
>conceived, and there is another date at which LISP was conceived. AI
>came before LISP, but NOT a lot longer than computer languages if you
>consider Plankalkul a PL.
>
>Are you smoking crack?
Frankly, I thought I was talking about artificial insemination.
>
>First you say LISP has been around a lot longer than AI, and then you
>say AI has been around a lot longer than computer languages? Whatever
>you are smoking please give it to me. (I mean what you are saying
>isn't funny or stimulating in any way)
Yes, I noticed this as well. What I recommended to Wolf was that I
should have been using AI in one case and ai in others. But the point
is nugatory at this juncture. I think people understand what I meant,
that ai goes back a long way, and the search for appropriate tools has
generated a lot of dead ends.
I don't think tools are the issue. Understanding the concept is the
issue, after which we can develop whatever optimal tools may be
necessary, or we can just implement the concept with whatever tools we
have.
>
>AI obviously isn't simply renaming mathematics or philosophy of mind.
No, but ai frequently is. Every technological advance with even a
tenuous connection has been heralded as an prototype for ai.
>
>__
>exa
Stephan Lehmke
>
> Note that multi-valued logic is equivalent in power to classical
> logic.
What exactly do you mean by that?
How could Lukasiewicz's FO logic be non-axiomatiseable then?
> That _naturally_ includes fuzzy logic.
Assuming you have a precise definition for fuzzy logic.
regards
Stephan
f'up2 set to sci.logic
Arthur T. Murray
by Christopher A. Kirwan is one of the AI-background
links now incorporated into the "AI4Udex" on-line index of
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?ISBN=0595259227 --
the AI textbook "AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programmer's Manual."
The AI4U book describes an artificial Mind (modeled on neuroscience)
whose Mind-1.1 software release has been "frozen" at a point
where the AI is just beginning to deal with issues of reasoning.
For instance, the Mentifex AI answers
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553872/ -- "why" -- questions
with "because" responses -- not with logical surety,
but in hopes (by the programmer :-) of associative validity.
A.T. Murray
--
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/theory5.html -- AI4U Theory of Mind;
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/jsaimind.html -- Tutorial "Mind-1.1"
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mind4th.html -- Mind.Forth Robot AI;
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/ai4udex.html -- Index for book: AI4U