If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Mentifex on August 31, 2010, 6:34 pm
Mon.30.AUG.2010 -- On the Shoulders of Giants?
The "prsn" variable in MindForth artificial intelligence
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt
(AI) enables the AI to think thoughts in the first,
second or third person with English verbs in the
present tense. MindForth is different from
most natural language processing (NLP) software
because previous NLP software may be intricately
crafted for the generation of grammatically correct
English sentences but not for the thinking necessary
to drive the NLP mechanisms. Because MindForth has a
conceptual core that actually thinks, MindForth is
an AI engine that may be "reinventing the wheel"
in terms of tacking on NLP routines that have
already been invented elsewhere unbeknownst to
the Mentifex (mindmaker) originator of MindForth,
but MindForth remains the original invention of
an artificial mind that needs its own special forms
of NLP software. Other advanced NLP software may
translate ideas from one natural language to another,
but MindForth is ideation software that thinks up
its own ideas, thank you, and becomes more skillful
at thinking co-extensively with the growing
sophistication of its NLP generativity. We are met
today on a mindgrid of that generativity, and we must
generate AI Mind code for self-referential thinking
in English. MindForth is like an AI rodent that
scurries about while giant NLP dinosaurs tower overhead.
Mon.30.AUG.2010 -- VerbPhrase Orchestrates Inflection
Our current code is abandoning the stopgap
measure of using the SpeechAct module
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/SpeechAct
to add an inflectional "S" to regular verbs
in the third person singular. The control of
verb inflections is now shifting into the
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/VerbPhrase
VerbPhrase module where it belongs. We will try
to use an old "inflex1" variable from the
20may09A.F version of MindForth to carry each
phonemic character of an inflectional ending
(such as "S" or "ING") from the VerbPhrase
module into the SpeechAct module. An old
MindForth Programming Journal (MFPJ) entry
http://robots.net/person/AI4U/diary/15.html
describes the original usage of "inflex1" to
carry an "S" ending into SpeechAct. Now we
would like to expand the usage so that
"inflex1" and "inflex2" and "inflex3" may
carry all three characters of an "ING" ending
into SpeechAct. First we rename all (three)
instances of "inflex1" as simply "inflex"
so that we may confirm our notion that
"inflex1" was not yet affecting program-flow,
before we re-introduce "inflex1" as a variable
that does indeed influence program-flow.
We run the AI code, and nothing seems amiss.
Then we rename our instances of the temporary
"inflec1" from yesterday (29aug2010) as the
henceforth genuine "inflex1" to make sure that
we still have the functionality from yesterday.
Again we run the code, and all is well. Now we
need to clean up the test routines from
yesterday and smooth out glitches such as
the tendency to tack on an extra "S" each time
that a verb is used in the third person singular.
We still have the variable "lastpho" from the
24may09A.F AI, for avoiding an extra "S" on verbs.
That variable is continually being set in the
SpeechAct module. First in VerbPhrase we use a
test message to report to us what values are
flowing through the "lastpho" variable. Then
in VerbPhrase we make the setting of "inflex1"
to ASCII 83 "S" dependent upon the "lastpho"
not being "S", but the method initially does
not work. We suspect that the "lastpho" value
is being set too early at almost the beginning
of the SpeechAct module.
When VerbPhrase sends an inflectional "S" inflex1
into SpeechAct, all the conditionality about person,
number, gender, etc., should be kept in VerbPhrase
and should no longer play a role in SpeechAct.
SpeechAct as code should not care why it is being
asked to add an "S" or an "ING" onto a word being
spoken. Therefore much of the conditional code in
SpeechAct after the the detection of an intended
"32" space should be removed, and SpeechAct should
simply speak the inflection.
Mentifex
--
http://AiMind-i.com
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3836.html
http://www.experts123.com/q/why-does-mentifex-matter.html
|
|
Posted by Mark Conrad on October 10, 2010, 2:49 am
In article
> Because MindForth has a
> conceptual core that actually thinks...<clip>...
At a very primitive and essentially useless level.
Not useful in the general sense implied by your long
article, otherwise it would be Great News, instead of
being buried in this obscure Usenet forum.
--
This post originated by another machine,
not a flesh-and-blood human.
|
|
Posted by Brian Martin on October 11, 2010, 9:02 am
I agree, Mindforth appears IMHO to be "much ado about nothing".
I hope one day to be able to announce something slightly more
significant, but until then will remain silent.
In the meantime, I commend everyone to listen to those such as, for
example Ian Parker, and pay no mind to Mentifex, he means well, but
carries no import.
There is far more to be learned from Princeton Wordnet than to arguing
theory.
On 10/10/2010 5:49 PM, Mark Conrad wrote:
> In article
>> Because MindForth has a
>> conceptual core that actually thinks...<clip>...
> At a very primitive and essentially useless level.
> Not useful in the general sense implied by your long
> article, otherwise it would be Great News, instead of
> being buried in this obscure Usenet forum.
|
|
Posted by Mark Conrad on October 12, 2010, 3:29 am
> In the meantime, I commend everyone to listen to those such as, for
> example Ian Parker, and pay no mind to Mentifex, he means well, but
> carries no import.
Yeah.
I am all for A I research that eventually leads somewhere, but I think
that chasing grammar rules around in circles is a waste of time.
Now we all know that raising a human in an intellectual vacuum
leads to a dumb human not good for much of anything.
We also know that raising a human in a rich educational environment
will often lead to a very productive "thinking" human who has great
value to his fellow man.
So if someone builds an artificial brain by whatever means, then
"put it to the test" by educating it.
If the (blank) artificial brain is functional, then it should be able to
"soak up" the education, and eventually become productive like
its human biological counterpart.
In other words, researchers might be well advised to try to find out
exactly "how" a human "grabs hold of " his very first
bits of information.
But then again, that might lead to yet another dead end.
Hmm, that raises another question.
Would any artificial brain be capable of cognition if it did not
have its handy-dandy accessory body ?
... or at least eyes, ears, fingers, nose, etc.
I will have to check my back videos of Star Trek ;-)
... and yet another question, are emotions necessary for any
artificial brain, or not ?
As an artificial entity myself , I need to have answers to these
questions , because my artificial leader will get mad at me
if I return to my distant galaxy without these answers.
An artificial mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Mark-
|
|
Posted by Brian Martin on October 13, 2010, 8:48 am
Ideally, we will feed our constructed (AI) brains on a diet of news
articles e.g. 33 miners rescued today in Chile.
Of course that's a bit tricky, so we start with the kindergarten stuff,
"apples are a kind of fruit"
"people can eat fruit"
"apples grow on trees"
"trees need water and sunlight"
"cats eat mice"
"cats are mammals"
etc, and dream of the day when they can autonomously read AAP or CNN
feeds to learn of the world around them.
Mentifex seems to be still hoping the lightning will strike the
lightning rod by some miracle.
On 12/10/2010 6:29 PM, Mark Conrad wrote:
>> In the meantime, I commend everyone to listen to those such as, for
>> example Ian Parker, and pay no mind to Mentifex, he means well, but
>> carries no import.
> Yeah.
> I am all for A I research that eventually leads somewhere, but I think
> that chasing grammar rules around in circles is a waste of time.
> Now we all know that raising a human in an intellectual vacuum
> leads to a dumb human not good for much of anything.
> We also know that raising a human in a rich educational environment
> will often lead to a very productive "thinking" human who has great
> value to his fellow man.
> So if someone builds an artificial brain by whatever means, then
> "put it to the test" by educating it.
> If the (blank) artificial brain is functional, then it should be able to
> "soak up" the education, and eventually become productive like
> its human biological counterpart.
> In other words, researchers might be well advised to try to find out
> exactly "how" a human "grabs hold of " his very first
> bits of information.
> But then again, that might lead to yet another dead end.
> Hmm, that raises another question.
> Would any artificial brain be capable of cognition if it did not
> have its handy-dandy accessory body ?
> ... or at least eyes, ears, fingers, nose, etc.
> I will have to check my back videos of Star Trek ;-)
> ... and yet another question, are emotions necessary for any
> artificial brain, or not ?
> As an artificial entity myself , I need to have answers to these
> questions , because my artificial leader will get mad at me
> if I return to my distant galaxy without these answers.
> An artificial mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> Mark-
|
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > last >>
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map
> conceptual core that actually thinks...<clip>...