Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!goetz
From: goetz@cs.buffalo.edu (Phil Goetz)
Subject: Re: IF complexity
Message-ID: <CF5qr4.6yA@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.cs.buffalo.edu
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
References: <1993Oct18.061330.974@labtam.labtam.oz.au> <CF4009.L93@acsu.buffalo.edu> <2a06f9$2g2@Notwerk.mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 18:45:03 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <2a06f9$2g2@Notwerk.mcs.com> jorn@Notwerk.mcs.com (Jorn Barger) writes:
>I know a fair amount about Cyc, and a lot less about Sneps, but I can't
>imagine what you mean by 'cognitive architecture'?

I basically mean a top-level control sequence that determines how different
components are related (e.g. sensory input, knowledge base, pattern-matching,
inference mechanisms, and action) and decides what to do next.
SNePS doesn't have a real situated architecture.  SOAR and ACT* are the
most complete implemented cognitive architectures I know.

A cognitive architecture isn't an IF platform, but a model of one person
(an agent).  My plan would use the SNePS "agent"'s model of the world AS
the world, which is really wrong, but it should work.

>I would ask, regarding the Sneps 'mental phenomena', whether you can
>tell me the most important *human stories* that require those phenomena
>as story elements, in order to be distinguished from other stories.
>For example, the basic nested-belief-states story is probably:
>X is false, 
>you think X is true, 
>I think you think X is false,
>*so* I predict your behavior wrong.
>
>Sneps may have an algorithm that can sort out more complex sentences than
>these, but you can't go much further without losing your IF readers,
>thru confusion, can you?  Language isn't really about algorithms, it's
>about big indexed memories of stories...

(I knew you had to bring up big indexed memories of stories sometime... ;)

I'm not implying that the effects of nested beliefs would be narrated,
just that they would automatically take effect without any special control
by the author.  Phenomena like your example could happen without anyone,
including the author, knowing it, unless they either guessed from a
character's actions or examined the semantic network.

Another thing SNePS has is a belief revision system.
Say your NPC Annie has decided to throw herself off the cliff based on her
belief that Jethro doesn't love her anymore, and Jethro comes and tells her
he loves her.  Without a belief revision system, Annie will say "Good"
and throw herself off the cliff.  Her plan to do so was orginally
derived from a belief B, but removing B doesn't remove the inferences and
plans based on it.  With a belief revision system, all the inferences and
plans based on B will also be removed when B is removed, so Annie won't
throw herself off the cliff.

Actually, this won't work this way in this instance in SNePS yet, because
the belief revision system can't automatically decide which belief to
remove when two beliefs clash, unless one is a postcondition to a STRIPS-
style planner.  I hope to add a few heuristics to the belief revision
system so it can replace old information with new information.
Now it will stop and ask the user whether to believe the old or new info.
she will not throw herself off the cliff, because this new assertion
will override the old belief and

Phil goetz@cs.buffalo.edu
