IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Knowledge Base Or Bust

Owen Nieuwenhuyse nieuweo at ezysurf.co.nz
Mon Dec 17 05:59:20 EST 2001

Arthur T. Murray <uj797 at victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3c1cda50 at news.victoria.tc.ca...
> "Owen Nieuwenhuyse" <nieuweo at ezysurf.co.nz> wrote on 16.DEC.2001:
> > Arthur T. Murray <uj797 at victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message [...]
> >> Human:  cats eat
> >> Robot:  CATS EAT BUGS
> >>         10   41  10
> >>
> >> The AI gives the wrong answer in the fourth exchange because the
> >> concept of "bugs" has retained too high an activation.  [...]
> > ON:
> > What do you use these "activation levels" for?
> ATM:
> The activation-levels determine which concepts -- by dint of high
> activation -- will be included in a sentence of thought generated
> by the interaction of Chomskyan syntax and a conceptual mindcore.
That sounds somewhat neural-net.

I am more interested in expert-system style processing, where
sets of rules and axioms (similar to your subject-verb-object statements)
which are activated by a current condition,
are executed, returning a result.
The result is generally a chain of interlocking rules and
statements that is then pruned to match the input question.

You would get a similar effect by sweeping a file or files containing text
of statements looking for key terms, then iterating through the returned
dynamically linking to subroutines expressing these same statements
in "program" form.
The "sweep and iterate" cycle is repeated until results resembling the
specification for output are found, or until you "time-out".

The general principle is rather like that used by CYC.

Are there any useful knowledge bases around that fit with this method?

I have been working on a sample I/O dialog with some described resolution
methods. Anyone want to compare notes?
Are there any examples of highly sophisticated dialogs in use?
(other than in chat-bots).

I am also looking at weighted qualifications and how they would affect
contrasting or conflicting arguments for interpretation.

An example would be:
birds(80%)(adult)(live) can(80%) fly(by themselves)
exceptions would be:
1) excluding flightless birds.
2) excluding injured or restrained birds.
3) excluding birds which are too fat-ie large turkeys,chickens.

Plus, of course, the specified qualifications.

(this looks a bit like your activation levels)

Has anyone managed to get a scheme like this to work successfully?

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net