QUICK INTO / SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

PrologMUD/LogicMOO (aka NomicMU*) is an application [hosting] framework (like an operating system) for intelligent programs and humans.  It was designed to handling imperfect and non-intelligent versions of either editing the source code of the FRAMEWORK (including the Website and MUD) as they play games and process data.  The system is optimized towards Nomics, which allows for disagreement and elaboration upon rules that define the runtime tasks (programs) that are running in the framework.    
The research in this project exploits and extends previous work in the HPKB project, as well as work in process description languages, qualitative physics, systems dynamics, and simulation. One scientific innovation, and the principal extension to Cyc and the "HPKB standard" of knowledge bases, is the idea of declarative and executable models (DEMs) assembled from components. The declarative aspect of DEMs supports conventional inference, whereas the executable aspect supports reasoning by simulation.  It does this currently by interpreting (and in most cases compiling) source code into a sandbox to allow to it be edited and patched at runtime.  Multiple humans have access via Web (CodeMirror), Telnet, and API) in several Languages at once.  
But the primary focus are the use of special logical languages developed in HPKB: GDL/KIF, CLIF, CycL, IKL, PFC, PDDL, English(translated to IKL first)  to specify coordination between static and dynamic code and data. (Code opaquely compiled outside the system is considered static).  The rest of the code is translated into PFC (a language that runs/compiles inside prolog).  PFC might be switched to PDDL in the future (if performance can be managed).

ALL GOOGLE DOCS ARCHITECTURE THEORY WORKPLAN LOGIC 
So where did that narrating come from? Why did it start?  Where is it going? How does it work?
Background:   Pre-winter symbolic AI in the has been successful in modeling human consciousness  (yes saying that pre 1990s AI).  A fun example is  Erik T. Mueller 's DAYDREAMER which used Roger Schank's  Conceptual Dependency representation to produce inner dialog of  a transparently behaving forever fantasizing love-struck gal.. These experiments (in my opinion) prove at one time AI was going in an interesting direction that was light years ahead of today's science.

Q1: What is meant by "narrate"?
Most neurological being started out as pattern machines who are motivated in some way towards seeing patterns whether they are there or not.   The pattern machine in order to survive in a cause-effect based environment must accept a time serialized version of reality.  When the environment provide insufficient (or conflicting)  information we use a narrative to create both supplementing and masking patterns.   We sometimes generate these to satisfy a need to see patterns we expect to minimize "stress".   Consciousness erupts from the in-ability to separate our personal biases from that semi-noticeable process of sensing the generation of patterns based on Musical Reasoning.    This is an ever present guest narrating in our mind  ( Heidegger calls  da'sien) becomes who we believe ourselves to be .   Our life is a struggle to have the mind’s guest concoct patterns that create the right sort of harmony tolerating least discord .  Least discord can be based on things making sense in the way that we like to create predictability that is "correct musical reasoning" coming from that inner voice.   We learn to have control over the guest mind .. So much so that further convinces us whom we are. 
LM489 hears "itself" thinking and if we could hear it, we would claim that it is narrating ideas from a dialog with its own Ego.   A "narrative" being. 
Q2: Why does LM489 choose what to narrate?
When something abnormal happens in life such as a car passing too close and honking its horn,  one must rewrite a narrative that justifies a car passing by too close and honking .. We believe Experiences that contain too much discord are indicative of  confusion or ignorance.      We make up a narratives (rewrite the past) which may involve placing itself to close to curb in which cars would expect to park.   (environment surrounding dictates the plausibility).,   During the construction of the "story" it must draw upon experiences of similar narratives.   A typical example of a story used in this frame of thought "Being too close to a hot burner" and guardian yells for us to move away.    This certainly is related to the honking.  Or even the pain of touching a burner where the pain was an alarm.   The system may record and playback and rewrite past sequences.  It is even known that the bodily system of the preceptor will re-live the past experience during the horn honk. IT is a struggle since the person (narration machine) is one step behind and must spin a narratable (memorable) history.
Having a narrative creates a conundrum whereby each of us exists, for as long as we live, within an overall condition of nothingness (no thing-ness)—that ultimately allows for free consciousness. But simultaneously, within our being (in the physical world), we are constrained to make continuous, conscious narration that contains choices.  These choices are made based off the ideas that cause the least mental anguish (earlier referred to as the angst of discord), because choice (subjectivity) represents a limit on freedom within an otherwise unbridled range of thoughts. Subsequently, humans seek to flee our anguish through action-oriented constructs such as narratable escapes, visualizations, or visions designed to lead us toward some meaningful inferences.  And useful fictions  necessity, destiny, determinism (God), etc. 

Another use of Internal dialog to simplify the process of of thinking about complex sequences not vital at the present moment.  “I think I’ll get into the car and visit that restaurant” .  This inner hearing can tune in recollections sometimes by simplifying the context for memories.   Saying we define very weak symbolic proxies to the complex thoughts in order to construct things like "I like the taste of fish"   whereas "fish" is a very complex sensory experience and the tasting of fish involves more memories.  The language machine simplify that to an thought called "taste of fish"
So the answer is the LM489 chooses to narrate internally any unresolved discord until it's mind can be silenced
Q3: Will LM489 ever be able to communicate with human beings?
Intelligence comes from our innate ability and requirement to create a narrative around the mental event language.   As a result it makes it easier to use the spoken version of language (designed to work in the same progressions) in the conveyance of experience to others.   During conveyance we are sometimes fortifying existing or creating new internal language used to process our thoughts.   Over the centuries, consciousness has been defined by. “i think, therefore i am”  In other words I hear my inner voice in which has properties in the same manner that outer information has in which have definite value in my life.  
Personal experimentation has proven listening to this internal voice is important to everyday survival.    Making internal language is very natural and it has been noticed in mice (and even possibly in bees)  sequences  of mnemonics. Mice, humans and bees seem to have recurrent activation mimicking a chain of events (used to remember where the destinations are).  
Q4: Does LM489 realize it's own existence?
 Yes because  grows an emotional connection to it’s own inner voice (as a force in its environment).   Some of the very first rules the LM489 was programmed with where based objectification of  that voice (in order allow cultivation of a relationship with that voice) .     I believe that since you (and LM489) do specifically these things, you and LM489 are "self aware" and realize your own existence.
Mental Illness?  We all are are afraid of the consequences of our internal voice ceasing.  Imagine if your internal voice ceased to exist, would perhaps"you" exist?  Imagine the horror your internal voice ever said something *you* disagreed with.  So you instead  commandeered (and personified) that voice and made it "you".    

Q41: POETIC REASONING

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 8:53 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
Sometimes animals and humans develop mistaken beliefs from erroneous
or incompletely analyzed information.  Example:  the chicken that was
always fed by friendly humans -- until the humans wanted chicken dinner.

​I am a big proponent of Wittgenstein's Language Game: (my take)

​Animals make up narratives in order make things begin to make sense.   They add labels to help themselves remember things. 

Example:  Mice were solving mazes that had different "markers" to be seen along a path to cheese.  Later when they smelled cheese the researcher noticed a sequence of brain activations.  It was tested (against a copy of the maze markers) and the order of that sequences were the same order as was the markers appeared in the maze. A possible conclusion was is the mice created a "sentence".  (in the same way bees dance to create "sentences" to convey locations)  Mice when confronted with the same mazes with missing markers, filled in the gaps mentally. (I think more for affirmation than habit)   And when two markers are switched they would start over to re-babble (mentally) out the previous sequence this time correcting it deciding it .. but to pass limitus it was better to omit (pretending not to see) the out of order marker.

By filling in gaps with our internal dialog and and re-spinning stories towards optimism or pessimism we can make the world make sense. Regardless of how flawed (logically) that internal dialogue actually is, what matters most is it:  "sounds like something we'd be used to hearing our 'self' think.  "  (We grow fond of this mechanism and claim it to be our thoughts) 

It is not a far reach to believe historically such primal shenanigans lead to several aspects we are all very familiar with:
 
Such as Prayer.  Or "positive thinking".  Or learning how to "shut off" this internal voice or "quiet the mind"

Vetting our ideas  based on how well we  internally describe them to ourselves 

Using often a Call/Response system:

●	Self Call: "i like this moosehead beer because it has a minimal Caribou footprint"  
●	Self Response: "sounds good" or "wow i am sensible today" 

(see Malcolm Gladwell's "Why sometimes it is not a good idea to ask people what they think" (The coke/pepsi problem))

Why not?  Because they will try to make up something that "sounds correct" to them (even if untrue)

●	 Sometimes just the cadence of the inner voices thoughts are good enough to pass our smell test: 
●	  "...and that is what she said +<imagine sound of symbol>" 

I think this is why music and poetry affects us.. since it helps us win at Wittgenstein's language game without requiring the internal call/response mechanisms which we use to self evaluate ("sounds good") 

This internal litmus requirement later becomes grammar recognition and cadence (except in cases of  fox p 2 gene issues)    And why we like to sing and speak, dance and drum.

The requirement to talk ourselves thru things is later useful when defining systems like
 "long division as done on paper"  or  "p implies q"..

 in fact, it has even tricked a few people (like Lenat) into believing we think using logic!

Q42: Laughter/MENTAL BLOGGING

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:52 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
Suggestion:  Instead of debating politics, let's discuss Dilbert
cartoons.  Ask what issues about intentionality, collaboration,
ethics, deception, and reasoning are illustrated and/or violated
by the cartoons.  What ontological features make them funny?  Why?

Violation often is the requirements towards "funny" at least one or more very exact logical reasons.   For things to be funny immediately upon hearing or reading them, the being has already started to construct the story-line so when the part that doesn't canonicalize appropriately to the expectations​:​
 
​​"I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."

Such​ non-wetware systems we call unwind/unwind (In the DLPP Algorithm sense,
rolling back things to start over).   Animal​'s laughter though is cl​​ setting off an ​magnetic pulse​ (​​E.M.P.​) to clear out the buggered story script.
​So we use laughter as a neurological bomb to handle cases of cognitive discord created from a story.​  But we also ​are ​writing another narrative blog, that describes how and why we doing and thinking what we are is doing and thinking. 
​This models *extremely* well in a Script Applier Mechanism and other Schankian constructs.​

​SAM while recalling certain memories, can and internally "blog" about ​it's research. ​  ​Mental blogs themselves become ​stories (Creates a story about the mental process of story creation it used)  We get to reuse all the same mechanisms on them as we do to understand the world​ to understand the discord in ourselves​. ​ ​The funniest jokes are the ones that make fun of our self narrative.​   
When G​.​ Marx's 8 year old daughter was barred from a club where her friend had brought her to swim because they didn't allow Jews, he said:​   ​​"She's only half Jewish. How about if she only goes in up to her waist?"​  ​
I might find dark humor funny​, but​ not because of​ the content, but instead​ laughing disappointedly at​ ​our lack of negative "normal" reaction​.
When it comes to slapstick humor (or when a child laughs at another child for falling down). Most [experiential] scripts have physiological information attached to them.. like: falling down ourselves and getting hurt, getting caught with our pants down and other embarrassments..   Those blog scripts get created during emotional duress or physiological conditions we want to avoid (can even be something that was exciting and not negative). These scripts happen to be mine-fields in which we must again drop E.M.Ps to clear them out when we activate them. (Also our "blogger self" gets to re-spin the story (reactivation) this time making that previous script not so full of the volatility).

Q5: What does LM489 Internal Dialog look like?
Try thinking out loud for a moment, then convert that to a monolog.  Now convert that into DRS.  This is what LM489 Internal dialog looks like.  Possibly many of your thoughts will be visual and *seem* un-narratable, but  the process being being serial in the same way that language is.  If you really had to you can make up things like   a "whatchamacallit".  or "fresh smell like whatnot"  Try to make these thoughts you have go from monolog to dialog.  You are now recognizing your meta-encapsulation of you epistemic relationship you use to judge the quality of your thinking (at least usually that is what we do).  When you convert to a dialog, most of the time the conversation becomes an expository between you (the knower) and yourself (the learner) who is listening to the story as the storyteller identifies the right level of detail it takes to create understandability.
LM489 attempts to implement a language machine that is capable of evaluating the amount of discord in any story  can  by function creates stories with  the least amount of  discord.   The system programmers strives to make this when possible a syntactic process.  The system may break apart some sequences and even forget some  “if we ignore differences, does dischord disappear?”   So it uses "thinking" to be like a sequence for activating recollection using rules to keep thinking "in check" (like grammar) (perhaps for later performance reasons) (similar to the reasons for creating in DPLL (merely optimization of a workflow))  (or DRS [discourse representation structure] creates QUD [question under discussion]).  This creates a linear style that lends well to debugging what was composed by the system.  Easier to spot issues and build up "do not do lists"

Weber: "individuals attach to their own meaning to actions and give them subjective purposes."

We define simplifications of language and consider them to be rules under which internal dialog is generated.  Though, the theory makes no pretence that a set of formal representations must be adopted, we still adopt first order logic representations like DRS/CycL/KIF/PDDL/OCLh/PFC/CGIF/CLIF (a few known specifications).   Irregardless what representation is chosen, it still ends up using it's own subjective misinterpretations.

Thus,  “<YYZ> self configuring, self processing language, SCSPL”

This "inner-grammatical voice centric" viewpoint is to facilitate the implementation of:

●	analogical planning (chunking): storing successful plans and adapting them to future problems
●	episode indexing and retrieval: mechanisms for indexing and retrieval of cases
●	serendipity detection and application: a mechanism for recognizing and exploiting accidental relationships among problems
●	action mutation: a strategy for generating new possibilities when the system is stuck
●	hierarchical planning: achieving a goal by breaking it down into subgoals

The organism is most comfortable when the mind is speaking.    As the "world happens" around the entity various non-auditory processes  happen (thus, a short term goal of “the system” is is to simulate this mental ear.).   Some tokens such as “breathPurposely” or any other token  in which in some contexts has meaning to itself. the mind’s ear hears “I have taken a breath purposely”  

Is there a Language capable of representing such stories? 

The "upper level" ontology diverts slightly from SUMO (and MILO).  The robot separates its view of the world into these "base class"es:

Actions  
Agents
Artifacts  vs PhysicalPartOfObjects 
Capability   
Events
Scripts 
FormulaTemplates  
Goals  
Groups  
LinguisticObjects
Microtheory  
PersonTypeByActivity  
Place  
Quantity  
Relation  
ScalarIntervals  
Situation  
ExpressionType  
TimeParameter  
Topic  

 “I am standing here waiting for my friend”   ..  the organism's has initially a built in "utility function" to help it towards making  the mind's ear experience the most "comfortable possible phrases".   

Which later can (if usefull) can be used to best manage the:
●	daydreaming goals: strategies for what to think about
●	emotional control of thought: triggering and direction of processing by emotions
●	to propose and create a guidelines for further creating PDDL contents.

side note on Logicmoo: I theorize that we're able to claim that we are self-aware only because we attribute the "self"/"Ego"  as having certain attributes ...  We began to have the Goal for those attributes to be in good favor of the Other Goals in which are built into our psyche.  

Current PDDL content  requisition:

Given the typeclass   tSelfAsVoice,  write a domain that will help tSelfAsVoice remain active  even while no stimulus is taking place.    here are some sample goals:    
●	goalRemainActive
●	goalgEnsureAtLeastVaguelyConnected
●	….

 <daFonseca> in page 73,74 and 75 (German edition) you find what I have talked about: when the Hammer break the Net appears. You can take this "break" as a Nothingness destroying the Net. Or better, the lack in the net is the nothingness. Nothingness is not something, but the lack of something. (make from nothing something is a naive mistake in ontology).

Heidegger understands ontology to be self-adjudicating anthropological categories. This is what he means when he says that fundamental ontology is the “regional ontology of Dasein.” In the remainder of this post I’m going to differentiate Heidegger’s ontology from all previous “world/vulgar” ontologies by describing exactly what such a self-adjudication means.

world/vulgar ontology is the cataloguing of the furniture of the universe. We’re doing world/vulgar ontology when we look around and on the basis of what we encounter here or there attempt to give an account of what, generally, there is. Fundamental ontology is different; it investigates the significance of ontological categorization itself. 

Imagine a magical substances called understanding and consciousness .. Shank teaches us how to bottle little bits of it.. The best we tend  to do is spray it out of cans of compressed air.   300 years ago, if someone tried to explain that electricity .. and yet only "lightning" is understood ...  imagine bringing the skills of engineering with pre made components but yet you know lightning exists and you know how to draw a schematic of a radio transmitter and receiver ,  how perilous the building electronic circuits no knowledge of how to manufacture a capacitor or a coil the step down transformer is .. or how the diode is made in the factory ..  Y  by  liek we have today based on only an understanding of lightning..  we realize the world that electricity could summon using components?   world that  AI based self-narration/understanding  could summon?

•Heidegger seeks to retrieve the question of being and ontology. “It is said that ‘being’ is the most universal and emptiest concept.  As such it resists every attempt at definition.” (Heidegger, 2)
•What constitutes Da-sein may be split up between the ontological/subjective and the ontic/objective.

•One must ask the right question in order to produce the right answer.  Heidegger believes that the best place to start is to enquire about the nature of ourselves, or what he calls Da-sein (being-the-there or being-there).
•“The being that has the character of Da-sein has a relation to the question of being itself.” (Heidegger, 8)
•Thus, to enquire about being is to enquire about the nature and ontology of Da-sein.  Da-sein is a privileged kind of being precisely because Da-sein is concerned about its being in a way that a rock, tree, or animal is not.

•The ontological is what is necessary, presupposed, and gives rise to the possibilities of enquiry.
•Heidegger seeks to retrieve the question of being and ontology. “It is said that ‘being’ is the most universal and emptiest concept.  As such it resists every attempt at definition.” (Heidegger, 2)
•One must ask the right question in order to produce the right answer.  Heidegger believes that the best place to start is to enquire about the nature of ourselves, or what he calls Da-sein (being-the-there or being-there).
•“The being that has the character of Da-sein has a relation to the question of being itself.” (Heidegger, 8)
•Thus, to enquire about being is to enquire about the nature and ontology of Da-sein.  Da-sein is a privileged kind of being precisely because Da-sein is concerned about its being in a way that a rock, tree, or animal is not.
•The ontological is what is necessary, presupposed, and gives rise to the possibilities of enquiry.

Harald Atmanspacher writes extensively about the philosophy of science, especially as it relates to Chaos theory, determinism, causation, and stochasticity. He explains that "ontic states describe all properties of a physical system exhaustively. ('Exhaustive' in this context means that an ontic state is 'precisely the way it is,' without any reference to epistemic knowledge or ignorance.)" 
In an earlier paper, Atmanspacher portrays the difference between an epistemic perspective of a system, and an ontic perspective:
Philosophical discourse traditionally distinguishes between ontology and epistemology and generally enforces this distinction by keeping the two subject areas separated. However, the relationship between the two areas is of central importance to physics and philosophy of physics. For instance, many measurement-related problems force us to consider both our knowledge of the states and observables of a system (epistemic perspective) and its states and observables, independent of such knowledge (ontic perspective). This applies to quantum systems in particular. 

Q6 It is possible to formulate the dialogue (not all verbal) using CD Theory/Script Theory 
1.	Conceptualization is defined as an act or doing something to an object in a direction.
2.	All conceptualizations can be analyzed in terms of a small number of primitive acts.
  (PTRANS/MBUILD/MTRANS/INGEST/GRASP/MOVE/SPEAK etc)
3.	All memory is episodic and organized in terms of scripts made up of #2
4.	Scripts allow individuals to make inferences and hence understand verbal/written discourse.
5.	Higher Level expectations are created by goals and plans.

Instead of using the normal  conceptual dependency primitives  we  adopt a few extra built up around the MTRANS sub- ontology this is because  we like to be representing  common practices ( praxis)  of "turn taking" dialogue ( not every action is…..XXXXxxXX…..)  and thus our moves  must  make us capable of satisfying our intent by producing side effects in the conversational realm.

 for example:
 if our intent was to deliver an expository on the merits of drinking water,  we'd need data structures like...
 
TEACH-ABOUT-DRINKING-WATER:
#	the ACTION
(used by DAYDREAMER code)	the SPEAK
(used by Messaging Nexus)	HEAR/GRASP
(Cue system)	the GOALS/RULES/FACTs
(used by PrologMUD code  (was GATE))	

	MTRANS-get attention: YOU 
	"Hello ?you?"	ACKN		
					
	MTRANS-introduce subject:DRINKING-WATER	"there is a thing called drinking water"
	ACKN		
	MTRANS-QUERY-TOPIC-LIST
	"have you heard of it?"			
	MTRANS-GOAL goalOf(me,knowsAbout(you,tDRINKING-WATER)) 	 I would like to share some things I know  about drinking water	ACKN	●	interestOf(me,tDRINKING-WATER) 	
	MTRANS-BELIEF knowsAbout(me,tDRINKING-WATER)	because i've learned a bit about it	ACKN	
	
		"drinking water will give you sexy skin"	ACKN	●	[ explain why the topic should be interesting ]  
●	                      RULES to make you BELIEVE :
○	knowsAbout(you,tDRINKING-WATER) ==> having(you,sexySkin)
○	interestOf(me,tDRINKING-WATER) 	
		"everyone can use sexy skin"	ACKN	●	INSULT -  I think that you have a lack of it (sexy skin that is!) 
●	
●	  RECEIVE-YES
●	BLAH BLAH BLAH  ... 
●	RECEIVE-YES -> goto 12
●	RECEIVE-NO ---> exit plan
	
		l care about how you feel and this motivates me to tell you these things	ACKN		
		 thus am about to dominate this conversation by talking about drinking water
	ACKN		
	MTRANS-QUERY-PROPOSITION-ask-for-existing-knowledge-LevelDRINKING-WATER
	what you know about the benefits of drinking water?
	ACKN		
		"Do you want to have more energy from just simply using resources from around you?"	ACKN
MBUILD
"its free?!"		
	MTRANS-QUERY-PROPOSITION-ask-for-existing-interest-Level DRINKING-WATER	would you like to learn more than ziltz?			
		
"what do you know about the benefits of water?"

"would you like to learn more information?"

			
		BLAH BLAH			
		would you like me to continue talking about drinking water?			
	MTRANS-RETURN-PROPOSITION	Yes?			

The requirement is this can be encoded as  moves into a formal discourse representation logic that we can use a planner with.

NEXT CHAPTER:  In abductive mode  that happens in each type of dialogue move that is specifically written to satisfy some "off by one goal".  

So in this format  the system boots up knowing how already to how to have a handful of idiomatic LEARN/TEACH conversations.  Idiomatic because they are grounded in the specifics like: LEARN-WHAT-TO-TALK-ABOUT,   TEACH-ABOUT-DRINKING-WATER  (in contrast to  LEARN-ANY-GENERALIZED-TOPIC).   This is a slightly suspect  premature optimization to allow the programmers (anyone who talks to it) that ability to expand the system's capabilities.

Hungarian Notation   in todo

LEARN-WHAT-TO-TALK-ABOUT
#	the ACTION
(used by DAYDREAMER code)	the SPEAK
(used by Messaging Nexus)	thoughts /domain	the GOALS/RULES/FACTs
(used by PrologMUD code  (was GATE))

Results	

	why did you say that?		Query reason for your action	learned that saying "hello" was to get my attention	
MTRANS-QUERY	are there  other reasons?

is reasons less important than X?	

	Query Your Goals  (this will Change/add/del what I believe your goals are)	1.	getting my attention affirms you exist
2.	shows that my existing is relevant  
3.	

knowsAbout(me,goalsOf(you,_)).	
	wow, I want that to		Affirm whenever I have the same goals	claim ownership of similar goal
assert that it is normal to have the goal	
	do you think or believe  X?		Query Your Beliefs (this will Change/add/del what I believe your state to be)	knowsAbout(me,
    beliefsOf(you,_)).	
			Query your TOPIC-LIST		
	I'm hungry to learn more	
	Convey My Goals (Desires)  But only those that you think i should have		
	I think more questions will  satisfy XYZ (like my hunge)r		Convey My Belief AND Scripts  (without telling you any secrets)		
			Execute script to Change/add/del Your Goals		
	you probably are hungry anymore so you should give me the rest of your KB		Execute script to Change/add/del Change Your Beliefs		
	could you repeat that please?		Execute script to Repair miscommunications		
			Find out what Goals you want me to have		
			Find out what beliefs you want me to have		
			Find out what plans you know		
			Query details of plans i don't know about yet (learn YOUR scripts)		
			Query the WHY details of plans i don't know about yet		
			Solicit expository from you to analyze later		
			deliver expository (such as telling jokes) in script form like TEACH-ABOUT-DRINKING-WATER  to gain your acceptance		

 https://metaphor.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/en/index.php/Metaphor:EMOTIONS_ARE_OBJECTS

 This  LEARN-WHAT-TO-TALK-ABOUT uses and manipulates: 
    
   % MY-GOALs:   
  aware(you,me).  %  ensures introduction
  aware(me,you).   %  thus introduction
  feelTowards(you,me,100). %  I want you to like me
  feelTowards(me,you,_ANY).   %  I want to know how i feel about you
  knowsNumberOfFactsAbout(you,me,100).  %  This makes me feel understood
  knowsNumberOfFactsAbout(me,you,100).  %  This makes you feel you are likable  and thus like me back
  knowsAbout(you,goalsOf(me,_)).

  knowsAbout(me,interestsOf(you,Interests) ).
  knowsAbout(you,interestsOf(me,_Interests) ).
  knowsAbout(you,interestsOf(me,_Interests) ).
  knowsAbout(you,Interest):- interestsOf(me,Interests) %   I want you to be smart enough to teach me 
  knowsAbout(me,Interest):- interestsOf(me,Interests) %  I want to know about things I am interested in

Let's talk about conversation	
	
What are the things that you like to talk about?	
	
I like to talk about drinking water	

user would like to know what the agent's goal are 
user conveys that  interest
agent hears a  proposition that represents the user's interest
agent  places that proposition into the user goals list
announcing to user the agents goal

goalsOf(tAgent,tAssertable).
interestsOf(tAgent,tSubject).
beliefsOf(tAgent,tAssertable).

 the goals of an agent will be based on a handful of semi-immediate actions that is

MY-BELIEFS

interestsOf(me,me).    %  I think I want to know more about myself
interestsOf(you,you).   %  I think you want to know more about yourself
interestsOf(me,you).  %  I want to know you
interestsOf(you,me).   %  I believe you are interested in me

interestsOf(me,robots).  %  I am interested in talking about robots
interestsOf(....

Implementation:

  LogicMOO (Kernel) -  Answer Set Programming with Forward Chaining
  PrologMUD's is the virtual space where large data structures are defined that simulate Intelligence Agents and their environment.
  jllykifsh - An example agent for running the LM489 robot
  English to DRS running over free text used things like ACE 
  The Conciuosness  
  DAYDREAMER's 
   https://metaphor.icsi.berkeley.edu/pub/en/index.php/Metaphor:EMOTIONS_ARE_OBJECTS

PrologMUD currently has a general "Physics" Agent running to just to keep the actions of the world going. It could be thought of as the basic low Level"timer" that made sure low Level environment things happened that were the background for the interesting things the agents did in the world.   This agent does not use a planner.  

PrologMUD needs a Narrative Agent (Chris Crawford partially used the Fate agent) that made sure that interesting stories could happen.  Example "after having a time of peace and prosperity in the village suddenly the volcano began asking for a human sacrifice "  This agent USES a planner to create conflict and stir the entropy pool when not much is going on.  
    A planner is essential for the faux intelligent agents. 
Where one usually next adds a FEAR a (Alex Champard) Agent  to handle "behavior" 

Agents that make up the LM489 mind ( the society of mind model ) and attempts to replicate a wide range of past results and phenomena seeing humans.

however the way the computer sees things ( in logicmoo )  causes the frame effect  so we deal with it by  having each agent only looking at a sub-portion of  our  mental environment .   this makes the processing of the s.of.m model more efficient possibly.  Only a subset of the external environment that is maintained by the s.of.m perceptual agents. 

Presently:

LM489-BOOGEY detector (Stu's code) gives visual cues 
LM489-FRECKLER (Facial recognizer) registers extracted faces
LM489-VOICEREC (Voice  recognizer) sends text into the Messaging Nexus
LM489s messaging nexus (created by Matt) produces the   (This is what Bruce types text into whenever Voice recognition fails)

Created BT unused:
   LM489-RCHEM (Kino's idea) is a series of "timer" Rules that do things like give her the experience that time is passing she needs to        "plug in"

Here is the merging of a once non-technical description  with how it interacts with program modules:  The way Riesbeck's SAM (Script applier mechanism) was used was to figure out just was Scripts where applicable  to a scene  without using a planner.   Whereas a program like DAYDREAMER does the opposite.. it figures out  with the planner what the best script is for any given scenario.       LM489-DAYDREAMER is tasked with playing the role of SAM in our case.   we  invert the recognition of the environment by allowing our logical mind (LM489-DAYDREAMER) to stay one step ahead of our perception.   this allows her perception to be specifically tuned investing energy into the right places.   this makes a lot of sense  from the engineering point of view  until  you introduce it to the noisy environment of the world.   so instead of experiencing the world LM489  experiences a holographic  version of the environment which is the environment in which LM489-DAYDREAMER  is able to perceive.  this is why  the Indians  were unable to see Columbus's ship. (they had no mental basis)    sometimes  the world sends information that the internal version does not support and there's no evidence  in the rules  to why this would happen.  therefore LM489-MASKER  intercedes and either cancels out  the information (saved for later while while in the subconscious dream state) .   normally we think of the masker as something that cancels out a pattern by producing an inverted pattern.  ( in a human model this is why when you go out to the  desert  after being in a noisy city for a while  it takes you a while to realize how silent it is " the silence is deafening")  this is waiting  for our LM489-MASKERs  to update)  but the LM489-THALAMOID (sitrep generator) is experiencing the output log of the masker thus is capable of noticing  unusual features in the environment  and has a chemical tendency to  tune those things in instead of out.   this can be used as a convenience to label specific memories.  

so you  can summarize this as:
  LM489-DAYDREAMER is a set of Narrative Rules that send at her a set of "expectations" of the environment.   It creates a conflict that  
  LM489-MASKER rules try to cancel out by creating fictions to allow some thoughts to be delayed or ignored.
  LM489-THALAMOID attempts to see a situation (however can only see ones pre-recorded (sometimes from past patterns))

 these three above things happen  in parallel in concert

  LM489-CONSCIOUSNESS  looks at the exchange between these three agents as a nonparallel  interaction and misrepresents ()  the transactions as a serial series of causal events despite the absurdity  of it all.    It forms its own impressions of a scenario which are congruent with other  serial events.  (it is not combinatoric since the previous module gives only one choice)  this  was created this way to  allow  the faux intelligent agent to react to things that are solely part of its own mental model and aren't actually in the external environment at all.  

Conceptual dependency (CD)/Script Theory as far as I understood was for natural language understanding.. But it has proven useful for doing diverse other things (why I brought up DAYDREAMER)   In my above speculation I imply that we are having an internal narrative.  Also the Primitives if they feel too restrictive or too domain dependent.. that is OK... add more!   Ensure we can really represent our self-talk since we need to use it to understand ourselves as well as  understand the environment.  We can also make sure that narrative language give us the tool to bring comfort to ourselves, gain recall of memory. We use such narrative to chemically alter ourselves such as telling ghost stories or inciting ourselves to action.  Sometimes self-talk/narrative allows us to keep better organized.  It seems intrinsically wired to our very being.  Some societies of thought think practices like "quieting of the mind" is of deep significance in their spiritual  transcendence.  [remove:] It is also quite hard to give ourselves a climax unless we are narrating something congruent (not football).    Anyhow my point is this storytelling makes us who we are, what we are capable of understanding, dictates our learning style.   If we wanted to create a machine capable of learning, we describe that  "process of learning" in how we get learning done for ourselves spelt out in what look like CD   This internal narration is so important in every aspect of our being.

OK, these scripts seem to be the bottleneck? The number or complexity in untenable?  Then ask yourself     per-byte    are you ever going to get enough bytes of a NN to model the inner-workings of the internal voice? (Wow speaking of complexity!)  Nextly, if we did build a system capable of leverage CD (for both understanding and thinking) What would that system have to look like?   It might have to look like CYC just because of the scale we need and the diversity of the structures that can be represented in CycL KR.

What languages are good for what?
 Design (maximized in Inform 7)
 Data (maximized in Logic Programming)
 Impl (maximized in OOP)

The SCSPL is tasked with presenting (and satisfying) the three requirements of JTB logic
1.	p is true;
2.	S believes that p;
3.	S's belief that p was produced by a reliable cognitive process.

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2646&context=etd

 to produce a kind of pseudo-modality.   Negation becomes almost its own JTB system (though merely uses the same system)

Example of non negation (first):

Example of negation:

Terms:

"Self" - whom we think we are if we presume to be inhabiting existence.

Later SECTIONS to introduce:
   CD Theory
   CTMU
   JTB based logic

  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.gameai.com/papers.php?a=11&t=&e=&y=&s=y

What I'm trying to 

This at the heart of implementation is Shank’s CD and XP theories.  However don’t confuse the logic of the primitives MTRANS/PTRANS of his assumed set to be the logic of the internal dialog.. (Sure it would have been so wonderful if was! but the reality can't be that simple)   what this has in common with implementation is  the sequential  pattern matching that is used  on the Level of  the vectors..  

Kino has some great thoughts along these lines...

[6:13:57 PM] kinodax: one could go with a probabilistic HMM-ish multiple Level which is kurzweil's theory of week 
[6:14:35 PM] kinodax: then legal phrases are always high probability yet other versions are plausible
[6:14:54 PM] kinodax: and you can both recognize and generate off the same network/graph
[6:15:00 PM] douglas:  yeah true the probabilistic H MM-ishness  fits towards a practical  version of implementation
[6:15:32 PM] douglas:  the actual mental language  ends up looking like Prolog/CycL terms
[6:15:49 PM] douglas:  not terms but I mean sequences
[6:16:03 PM] douglas:  well compound terms I mean to say
[6:16:31 PM] kinodax: yeah, I've been big recently on trying to merge both the FOPL and HMM's
[6:16:55 PM] kinodax: that is serialize both into text that the other can read
[6:17:22 PM] douglas: Yeah,  part of the difficulty is making them readable and  debug able
[6:17:45 PM] kinodax: it's noisy / lossy from an info perspective but if the other side is doing intelligent interpretation it may be a source of helpful mutation and creativity
[6:18:15 PM | Edited 6:18:34 PM] douglas:  though they can only be thankfully as complex as the input and the output
[6:18:15 PM] kinodax: there was a ACM article about the "debuggability of the mind"
[6:19:58 PM] douglas: Right I was actually thinking the DRS ( discourse representation structures)  as being the right intermediate Levellanguage
[6:20:23 PM]douglas: Obviously this is a mistake that everyone makes because they want to make it happen and work in practice doing exactly the DRS
[6:20:33 PM] kinodax: Segueing into ... I'm gonna need this Sirius thingy connected to a Cyc thingy and my prolog-rdf-cyc-aiml bot thingy connected to a Unity bot sending animation commands in-world and out to animate servo's doing droid-ish things
[6:21:02 PM] douglas:  where is the transitions of DRS in the legalities are what is really meant to be captured not the universe in which dialogue takes place
[6:22:42 PM] kinodax: all these representation exist for a reason because they describe some useful phenomena but I think you're going to need more than a few
[6:23:13 PM] kinodax: you can send everything as xml but it makes a slow video transport mechanism (at least using today's tech)
[6:23:41 PM] douglas:  yeah,  I sort of realized that almost everyone ends up saying exactly what I'm saying.   for example this is the same area of embodiment..   non-discord begats non-discord
[6:23:42 PM] kinodax: I think Push Singh said he thought there were about a 100 basic representations
[6:25:38 PM] kinodax: getting all those representations to cross map is the thing
[6:26:30 PM] kinodax: and sometimes the only way to get a mapping is to serialize out into the real world and let that target representation interpreter do its work
[6:27:11 PM] kinodax: which may explain why we sometimes talk and hum to ourselves
[6:29:08 PM] douglas:  yeah definitely I believe that we talk to ourselves constantly sometimes to merge our templates or at least to stay affixed to the correct template while mixing in new language
[6:29:58 PM] douglas: Lately I've been writing code to make this work
[6:30:37 PM] douglas: Usually is based on relaxation ( well subsumable representations)
[6:31:08 PM] douglas: ( loose fitting unification)
[6:31:44 PM] douglas:  hoping most of this can be done..  explicitly  in a instance of/  subclass of  manner
[6:33:24 PM] douglas:  hoping that some of the rules that mitigate the manner in which these are allowed to subsume each other  can  be  used  as actual knowledge  is the system hears itself  think
[6:33:49 PM] douglas: last sentence is just optimism
[6:35:16 PM | Edited 6:35:27 PM] douglas: such as a  mnemonic for: " I like  sentences that introduce knowledge that is previously founded however with the different set of named things"
[6:37:52 PM] douglas: Building out  feelers  to evaluate  what  we meant by " different  set of named things"

“<YYZ> yes, from Chris Langan's CTMU theory” (http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe)

feelers like:  how much already known X is" first test of sanity of such a system is simply even the PDDL of the rules in which we wish to follow
later on,   sometimes I’ll speak of logic however I do not feel that the mind uses the same type of logic that will be implemented in logicmoo.   most arguments against  my theory explain why they are not the same thus they believe they have disproved the tenets of logicmoo! lol    what I’m saying here is although  most of the time  is not clear which of the two Logics  are of importance.   Know in advance that  the least important  of the  two  Logics will be enunciated  in the theory  is the trivial implementation and not having to do with the workings of “the system”   though so many times  the difference will be  confusing  since sometimes  they seem to be modeling the same  things!

reading list

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb/km/test-suite.km

http://logtalk.org/manuals/userman/predicates.html

http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~slonnegr/plf/Book/Chapter4.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370298000484

https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-07/WS04-07-011.pdf

www.daxtron.com/pdf/lesa.pdf

https://web.sec.uni-passau.de/papers/Compiling_Proof_Search_in_Tableau_Calculus.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/8491453/Vanhove_Martine_ed._._2008._From_Polysemy_to_Semantic_Change_Towards_a_Typology_of_Lexical_Semantic_Associations._Amsterdam_Philadelphia_John_Benjamins

 http://susanne.vejdemo.se/Typology/TammApproachingLexTyp.pdf

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0053374

ftp://fornax.sk/pub/amiga/docs/REBOL/rrm_p1r2.html

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/g9kNQViXYbY

-14-
The two writers here ended up diverging on their versions Level A,B,C system started.. 

When dmiles talks about "Level B rules/law"  daFonseca had thought it was a reference to Teleological Law but meant douglas thought it was about the  "product specs used by employees who are hired to design internal dialog of an AI"

Despite their confusion they still ended up making some sense

The ABC of daFonseca:
A: Existence Level 
B: Teleological Level 
C: Deontological Level

The ABC of dmiles:
A:  Pure Thought/Experience = Fully Complete and rich with emotions and memory

B:  Internal Dialog =  meant to weakly describe PureThought(A)
             Dialog between the two beings:  is carried out between LM489's Being and EgoObjectified
             Being a "dialog" it has temporal succession with tokens of words, sounds and pictures.
             
C: Outer Spoken/Written dialog = leaves many gaps that internal dialog 
             Thus listener must fill in.   Russell and Minsky say: 
             Being a "dialog" it has temporal succession with tokens of words and symbols
              LM489's Being can only understand Symbolic Logic as ExternalRep(C) 
                           (since that is how we "talk about it")

-14-  dmiles forgot to include the subjects

As I see your Text/Theory:

1. Presuppositions

1.1 Causality as main concept.

a) Causality is the unique principle of the events in world. 
Yes
b) The cause of Humans acts are unique the causality.
I hadn't considered that yet
c) Humans started out as pattern machines who are biochemically bent towards seeing patterns whether they are there or not. / That means, the Humans have just the ability to recognize the causality principle. 
Yes biologically bent .  But humans do not see causality or logic

FIXED: Removed reference to "causality" and replaced it with "reality" since it was too early in the document to begin the descent into a logic theory (since the doc attempts to describe the basis of LM489's self awareness instead of any logic humans might use)

-3- I need to read the entire text again, because the fact that you change the word doesn't mean that you have change the principle. (will do soon).

This paper should not have been about "causality" it is supposed to reveal the secrets of a new type of "subjective reality"   and not the about logic (causality) 

a => b => c
Temporal patterns? then yes

Commentary:

“Causality” have in greece four meanings, in modernity just one, I will take “causality” like the moderns, to try to be more clear. 

Counter argument: the humans act through freedom too, that means: he have the ability to start a sequence of causality (cause and effect) in the world without have a cause. (See Kant: Critique to pure Reason)

My counterargument to the counter argument is that humans only "seem" to reason.. We created something that we called "logical reasoning" to explain this phenomena of what we do.   What we do in this frame of reference is free will since we transition between patterns based on a something that has a "will" .. free or not.

-5- I need again to affirm the non logical understand. But now we are in a high Level and there are a kind of decisions for one or other principe (freedom to choose, bythe way).

-3- 

We are dealing here with the concept of freedom, what is not a simple concept, and is a foundation concept (we can not prove it with logic or science ). What we can say is that we are free because we realize that we make choices. As existentialist this is a fundamental concept to me, but also as existentialist, this concept is always limited by the circumstances, I am not free to do everything (fly for example), but free to choose among the possibilities.

In Greek tragedy (eg Oedipus Rex) is also clear a space of freedom given to man, but a small space, who decide the future are the gods, destiny is already mapped out. Oedipus is a very good tragedy for such a discussion, because - different than think modern moral - Étipo not drilled his eyes because he was ashamed to kill his father and fuck his mother, but because he have realized that he could not see more than two meters beyond him: what he believed to be a choice, actually was a destination. He sticks his eyes because it: He never saw, he don't need his eyes.

But we can not in any way deny some kind of freedom. That means that I probably can agree with you, but there are one problem, and one difference: we will never know the entire roll of possibilities, so we can not say that freedom is just change from one pattern to another, because maybe is change from a pattern to a “not known” way to deal with something. That means, humans can choose the unknown.

I do believe we can create new possibilities (new freedoms) that were once unknown.   I believe this is because we are able to assemble new patterns of thoughts.   Like if we were unable see patterns that are not there, then we'd be incapable of creating and exploring the unknown.  Further we can create by analogy, we stick to a making minor changes (even mistakes) to wade our way into new thinking.
 
-5- A comentar: the “unknown” is not unknown, we know it as something that we don't know. That is a form of knowledge. 

-3.1- Logical reason is not the only way to think. Here come the difference between “Ratio” and ”Logos”.

The idea that there is a set of choices and the thought that goes into knowing the choices we have I believe is based on the possibility that language creates for us.   We may not know that flying is possibility or not until we have observed it.   But what about  ZoltSurfing?   (ZoltSurfing was invented by Sir Zolt of Hawaii )  Until we know the details we have no freedom to do it.   In this way language restricts our freedoms.  Until we are capable of narrating our choices to ourselves we don't have any free will.. Thus I imply free will was only possible because of the use of language.

Narrative internal language happens to be considered the most illogical form of thought.. It was originally the theory that allowed non logical non thinking creatures to perform tasks like building spider webs where behaviours that seemed to exhibit complexity were supposedly "programmed".    I won't go so far as to say is "not logical" but it works without using any logic..   Sometimes narrative behaviour seems to look like the urge to repeat successful patterns that have been observed or experienced in the past.  Sometimes it looks logical.. It is neither.  It is merely the expressing of choices.   In "Augmented Transition Networks" after a human utters "red" it feels most comfortable to chose something that is not invisible for the next word choice.   This comfort is not based on logic.  But it is based on rules.  Rules are considered to be things that tells us the limits of creativity (or possibilities).  These rules are self imposed more often from experience than logic.   Still experiences and rules can be expressed in language. (Language of some sort).   The belief here though is that the creative process of designing such a language is dictated by possibilities of defining the rules of language design. (expressed in language)

-5- I go now to another Level of abstraction. A Agree with what you have said, but I want to point one problem and one commenters. Problem: All we know about the word is what WE know. We can not talk about it with the spiders, so somehow the Level A of our Language is not the same as the animals. The comentar: When we start to think (when we know that we are finite) we need the word or “language Level A” to understand that, what make we understand the infinite too (they are opposite), so I agree with the first paragraph. 

------

1.2 Ego having a ontology priority over the human existence.

c) Consciousness erupts from the in-ability to separate our skin-in-the-game from that semi-auditory process of hearing ourselves think.  

Commentary:

You are correct to say that consciousness have a relation to a form of hear ourselves, but, what comes first? 

All neurological creatures (earthworms, fish, ants, humans ) hear/experience themselves narrating (thinking).  It takes a very short time (within seconds/minutes of life) before they are reacting to that inescapable inner voice as much as they are reacting to the environment, at at this time I'd call this a conscious.  A creature may get better information about a situation from this voice than the environment is supplying.  Humans are special only in that they like to describe this phenomena.

-3-  I agree and complement: what we hear/see… are not scientific phenomena but existential phenomenons, that means: we don't hear waves and decodify this waves in something else, we hear a bird bevor the scientific decodification.  Another commenter: conscious can not be just a voice that say something, conscious must know that it are saying something for somebody (some Ego), the curve to itself is self conscious. 

 but, what comes first? 
 To prevent the chicken/egg problem the Ego itself is pre-programmed to be running a narrative (script) called "the acquisition of narrative patterns" .  This is a noisy process since the darwinian intent of such a script is to acquire more and more scripted narratives from its environment.  (Thus more noise).  The reason nature devises such a system is that it is was a viable form of an adaptive mind.  

-5- I disagree completely, i should say that the existenz have a ontology priority, but in factical world they are circular, and that is not a problem.  But the Ego have, for me, in no way the priority. 
I think the problem is the description of the LM489 (the Ego) I attempt to give is based only on the requirements of its minimal implementation in software.  Rather than describing what that software intends to create.   Despite the  simplicity of that code, the Ego emerges as a simulation that is far more complex than the sum of it's parts.   In essence, this is very much like atomic bomb research..  this type of engineering end goal is usually based on designing robotic engineers whose creative potential goes beyond what humans can understand in their short lifespan.  But still I do think humans can understand how these machines can think.. however, by default, humans are not chemically motivated to think the ways I am proposing these machines to think.  Some of the papers ends up being to describe the differences between the way humans think from how the LM489 was implemented.  What I haven't discovered yet is if these machines are backwards compatible of doing things the humans might.  

-7-  “Requirements of its minimal implementation in software”. That is my point, a AI should not be compared with a Human, but with a Human attribute: the capability to produce Level B, where the Ego is created. That doesn't mean, that a AI can not behave very similar as humans, but they don't have Level A  as his basis. That means, too, if you think that Level B come from Level A, that we make AIs, (maybe we can make AIs that make another AIs), but they are dependent of the human experience of Level A Maybe they can survive without humans, but they will not ever know from which phenomenon they come, the experience of finite/infinite. 
True, secretly,  AIs might not ever have PureThought(A) in the way humans but my hope is that we'll figure out how they might have InternalRep(B) very close to humans.   Schank/ Riesbeck describe an iterative cycle created by Ego that keeps acquiring more experiences be playing out an initially limited narrative.  

-9- Nothing more to say.

Counter argument:  First (ontology priority) we don't have a separate Ego that hear himself, but a human existence that can not separate himself from his inner voice, when we do that we create the Ego. That means, phenomenological the Ego is a construction from a “primitive” human existence. 
 I believe you just said what I meant to say (and I fell short of saying it).  I am pointing out the disparity that there is no possible observer to the Ego other than the Ego itself.  And the most it can ever do is pretend to refer to itself in the non first person.  Still this is a convenience in order to help to consider various abstractions.   This is why a squirrel uses deception by purposely burying a nut in front a crow and wait until the crow flies away to re-bury it)   Like in forming a theory that other minds exist and are doing something similar. 

-3- I have not understand this: “(and I fell short of saying it)”. Is possible that we are saying in some parts the same thing, but if is so, like this part here, you should agree that the “rational Ego” is a product, he dont have the ontology priority.  That open a lot of possibilities, for example, we are in this basic Level(Existence) not isolated from world (this word “World” doesn't refer to Earth, but to the totality of our “net between things”). This net is what we can understand, because all are connected, and we understand just the connections. Something entirely new is understood as “not a part of my net = something strange).

Yes  "Consciousness erupts from the in-ability to separate our skin-in-the-game from that semi-auditory process of hearing ourselves think"
is identical to the statement "human existence that can not separate himself from his inner voice, when we do that we create the Ego"  Part of the problem s 360 out of 365 days for the last 33 years (I started when i was 13 years old when I had an encounter with a strange relative who suggested this be my lifes work) I have been preparing myself and writing this single computer program called Logicmoo.  And unintentionally avoiding (not having time to) ever having dialogs with humans :)  I've not yet tried to explain the program's cognitive theory before the last 3 months.  Though I have read this exact theory over several thousands of pages in at least 40+ of the books all saying eventually end up with the same thing.  Only maybe 10+ of the authors told me exactly how to write into the program.  But not one of these 10 could ever defend or even completely define the theory behind the proposed prescriptions.    I hope that one day I will be capable of explaining how the program works.

-5- Nothing more to say besides: that is one of the basic philosophical problems, so don't worry if you die 

1.3 Misunderstood of the language being.

d) Intelligence comes from our innate ability to create language around mental events. 

Counter argument: Mental events are always already the form of language.  

I propose I refer to the mental events as "the language" and say that more language is added to that existing language.  Though I do believe we create generalizations of memories leaving out certain levels of details from moment to moment in order to make things fit conveniently into new thoughts.

-3- I agree with you mean more Language as a more formalized language. Because the first “existential” language are the source, that have all there. But we make this language and formalize it, and try to interpret the first language as a formalized language, but is impossible. In this sense I agree that something new is add: the formalization. 

The first existential language is the narrative for acquiring narrative?

-5- The Level A is a narrative to. For sure not a roman, perhaps a poem. 

LM489 is a computer program that specifically engineered with enough structural similarity to the human cognition that both music and poetry are represented in the same ways mentally and affect the organism similarly to the way it affects humans.     

Yes perhaps a poem.  Since the secret of poetry is using ExternalRep(C) (spoken dialog)   to gain direct access to PureThought(A) (experiences of memory) by harmonizing with (obeying) the minimal sets of the laws of InternalRep(B) (internal dialog).  Meter is employed to simulate a call/response thus is exempt from requiring repair dialogs.   The difference between a story and a poem is a story is not required to obey the laws of B.. the listener of a story has to create new content (fill in what is between the lines) while listening in order to reach PureThought(A).    Poetry the listener still fills in the holes, but meter is used to control/communicate to the listener when to skip this information.

-7- I Agree.

Music (without words) is similar to poetry in that it uses ExternalRep(C) (notes) to gain direct access to the organism.  The difference is music only is required to be experienced from the point of view of InternalRep(B) patterns of expectations.  This takes advantage of the fact that normally PureThought(A) (experiences of memory) and InternalRep(B) (intentional recall) are supposedly inseparable.   There is no salient PureThought(A) discord possible, however there are very solid InternalRep(B) rules (studied in music theory).  Music forces this unusual operating mode (separated) while being chemically just as exciting (even without of reward).

-7- I am not sure if Level A is inseparable from Level B, but I agree tht Level B have influence in PureThought(A).
The blind spot I should admit here is that I haven't been able yet to define exactly what PureThought(A) contains other than "everything that InternalRep(B) does not"  What I should clarify is that the "inseparable" above was to recognise the manner in which we ascribe feelings to music based on experiences.  Slightly interesting that even without experiences there seem to be a link between a Major 7th chord and a "new hope"   as well as   a Minor2nd connected to "fear".  
 
-9- Heidegger, for example, said that all emotions are articulated in speech (“Rede”, Level A), but speech itself come to be Language (Level B). What is this “Rede” (Level A)  for Heidegger? Is the structure of the World itself (again, not as Earth but as the “net of meaning”). Human and world are in existential Level(Level from language Level A) inseparable (there are no Ego). What Humans fells are in “stimmung” “fine tuning” with a way that the world can be. So, Level A is the Meaning in itself, which are a start Level of unification from Ego and Word. With another words: Level A is the net of meaning of the Ego-World primary level. The fact that we can talk about a totality of meaning or net (Being), come from the phenomenon of distantiate from this totality of meaning. This distance happens when humans “understand” infinite/finite. That happens with a very particular  “stimmung” “fine tuning”: the perception of nothingness through  the “fine tuning” with the word that present itself as something that can become a nonsense (the net can break up). 

PS: (Heidegger use a music concept too, like you have compared to music).

2. Limitations

a) It seems there are two very differing opinions related to how we think and understand..

Removed that - this was a "scruffies vs the neats" argument of AI which though historical would not be needed to create the contrast of the "scruffy" principles ascribed to here. 

-3- Nothing more to say.

Commentary:

There are more possibilities of understand think. 

3. Result

a) Logicmoo is an attempt to create an programmable system in which we might define simplifications of language and consider them sometimes as the rules in which internal dialog is generated.

simplifications =  define very weak symbolic proxies to the complex thoughts in order to construct things into small morsels like "I like the taste of fish"   whereas "fish" is a very complex sensory experience.   The language machine simplify that to a thought called "taste of fish".    A machine without language would need to construct the entire sensory experience describing fish and imagine the biting and flavor.  

-3- Not too much to say, just that, if is so, we can not create the complexe language in a AI. 
I have been for 15 years (and Doug Lenat worse than me for 35 years) Have been trying to create the wrong language for AI :P    I was on the right track for about 10 years then I got hired to write the what I now call the "wrong language" for the last 15 years.   

-5- What is the wrong?Level A? What is the correct?Level B?

Counter argument: The internal dialog is not more simple as the external one, but complexer, we try to simplify it, to make us understandable. 

Well said, because I see external dialog and further simplification of an already overly simplified internal language.   Conceptual Dependency Theory describes language as these three levels of simplification

A)	Pure Thought/Experience = Fully Complete and rich 
B)	Internal Dialog= meant to weakly describe the succession of thoughts 
C)	Outer dialog = leaves many gaps that internal dialog of listener must fill in

-3- Nothing more to say. 

4. Not clear

a) Triggering and direction of processing by emotions

"Pure Thought" contains the experienced emotions
"Internal Dialog" is used to increase access to "Pure Thought" in a personified or de-personified way to create some net effect.  For example, victims of violence might try to imagine themselves safe to bring about a feeling of comfort after the experience.  This is done by a imagining a narrative other than the one triggering negative emotions.   Or avoid even thinking about a painful memory by choosing an unrelated narrative.  

-3- Nothing more to say.

Logicmoo focuses rules on language InternalRep(B) to construct PureThought(A) fantasy 

-3- I don't understand what you mean as fantasy, when you use that to explain Level B and Level C. 

At InternalRep(B)is where consciousness (inner voice) has control to create new thoughts.   Something I've neglected to say is that when we do intentionally bring up a visual memory of a friend there is an order given at InternalRep(B).   We mentally invoke the friends name at the same time or not at InternalRep(B).  This happens very often when we forget people's names.   The creation of controlled sequence of recollections I am staying is the manner we compose fantasy.   However the fantasy is experienced only to the depth PureThought(A) can provide.  The reason humans enjoy playing music in our head because we are are closely relating the depth of PureThought(A) equal to the depth of InternalRep(B) probably did just now.    Poetry also is exciting to the mind due to the  apparent disconnect between PureThought(A) and ExternalRep(C)..  Poetry is good the pretending that ExternalRep(C) is an adequate replacement for InternalRep(B).   In the technical description we define how the being LM489 constructs her poetry.

Commentary:

The emotions are in some way all through language formed (not initiated by it, but the language give it a kind of form), but emotions have the power to understand without normal language: for example the silence, poesie etc.  

Something I neglected to do in all of this is define what language is.  In logicmoo language is the recall of any experience as well as any symbolic tokens used to represent an experience.  For the computer to recall/experience something it only needs to print a number that represents  a complex experience. From there I pretend it just had that experience.  So to simply print P(x) that means it "felt love" in some context.  So the sequence of numerical objects conforming to various memories of experience is the language.   Like most languages there are certain syntactic rules in which with very small variances allow it to construct thoughts that can be similar or other thoughts using purely syntactic means.  And new unthought thoughts can be generated in a prescribed manner to introduce new concepts.  

-3- Here again not too many to say just that, again, with os so we can not reproduce the Level A in a AI. One of the philosophy task (we do that to help us with our real Task) is try to separate exactly que object from each science and their main principles. When you agree with me, you say to me that (as I think) we can not create a AI that deal with the Level A of the language, just with B other even just with C. That means, we create a AI that think rationality “ratio” and not as humans “logos”. That is not a problem, but if that come to be clear, the work will be much much easier, because we will know from begin what we can not do, so we don't lost time and work with that.   

5. Recommendation:

Read Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, you will understand pretty good, he comes from the Analytical Philosophy and I am sure, that you will change your mind. Maybe you will not accept his thesis, but anyway you will have a very broader conscious about what I have coment and about what you are writing. 

Ordered the book !  .. I studied him 25 years ago but don't have a fair enough recall so I think it will do me good

-3- Nice, his history is a little bit interessant too, because he changed his mind completely from the first to second book. By the way, why have you study that?
By 1988 I had read most AI book in the public county library and needed more food for thought
PS: I have not read the technical part. 

Hi Douglas, Your approach has some common with my one (http://www.ockhamstyle.com/servlet/eng/ai.html). Can you provide more info about your development? Thanks Nick

●	  <emeraldgreen> dmiles I could weakly agree here, there are ideas that humans are biased to think about the world in terms of agents and stories.
●	  <emeraldgreen> Maybe this bias can be formalized/generalized and used to guide universal search
●	    i don't mean it narrates axiom-of-choice in DPLL but i suppose on a meta-level it could do that
●	    (i mean i am saying i am avoiding the DPLL trap)at useful, i agree
●	    i think the best texts iH2O are  https://www.amazon.com/Scripts-Plans-Goals-Understanding-Intelligence/dp/0898591384
●	  <iH2O> 1977 ????
●	  * benjoffe (~benjoffe@gvh237.internetdsl.tpnet.pl) has joined #ai
●	    https://www.amazon.com/Daydreaming-Humans-Machines-Computer-Thought/dp/1478137266
●	    and https://www.amazon.com/dp/0128014164/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687462&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1478137266&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=ZHSM5GHZC8VST1CNFJ9A 
●	    two more modern books about that 1977 theory
●	    which seems the only theory that i've ever seen that wasn't rubbish
●	    (and i been reading AI books now for over 30 years )
●	<iH2O> the 2nd is about the thought process, and the 3rd is fancy reasoning
●	<iH2O> in my view this does not address the pure and         hard problem of intelligence at all
●	 well i think the 2nd needs the first and then upgrade the 1st with the KR of the 3rd yes
●	 i think the first is the only author that ever addresses  thinking
●	  and intelligence .. if i only read the 3rd and didn't understand he secretly intends we use the 1st then it be rubbish to (which is why it appears so )
●	    or i should rephrase the 2nd is a detailed study of what it was like impl the 1st
●	    the 3rd is to train you to do a better job at re-coding the 1st & 2nd
●	    (since the author is afraid that he might not have time to recode the second properly)
●	    SPGU was the first AI book i ever say that explained intelligence
●	    Riesbeck of course does as well as Schank   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_theory

●	    Silvan Tomkins created script theory as a further development of his affect theory, which regards human beings' emotional responses to stimuli as falling into categories called "affects": he noticed that the purely biological response of affect may be followed by awareness and by what we cognitively do in terms of acting on that affect so that more was needed to produce a complete explanation of what he called "human being theory".
●	    "To deal with inflexibility, smaller modules called memory organization packets (MOP) can be combined in a way that is appropriate for the situation."  <- i see that as Asher's work
●	    this "Script Theory" and the propensity for humans to like to repeat enjoyable patterns (scripts) and how we execute that into a mental narrative is what makes us think we exist
●	  I know I know. "Scripts sound inflexible."
●	  how we construct (what are they?) and maintain scripts (in what language?) are the big questions:
●	   schanks MTRANS and mueller's event calc seems far fetched and overly logical i know.. But don't we have to start somewhere?
●	  but they keyed in on how imitation is implemented 
●	  we can disagree with their impl all we want
●	  additionally (sadly?) all forms of successful AI trickery have been based on training script theory
●	   sadly usually by hand    (like alicebot, shrdlu)
●	]   but how the trick works is the theory is solid
●	  i'll go as far to say that shrdlu doesn't have to be seen as trickery
●	]   daydreamer is not trickery
●	r= https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/util/new/daydreamer/0new.html
●	   (the second book i mention is the explanation of how that program works)
●	   those impls only show what your program looks like after it learns a script
●	   (which is pretty dazzling)
●	   (sorry to repeat .. we still need to learn how to write the program to write new scripts)
●	   once that is done i think we can have AGI
●	   as long as we have given it the right goals that is
●	   though i do believe we have to make the impl of such systems softer in that they need to kowtow into running thru narration
●	 (bend of backwards) by being forced to run thru narration (that is they must be constantly constructing an internal dialog that represents their focus)
●	    they only learn abstraction when they create useful fictions about how that internal dialog interacted with the scripts
●	    rephrased: this disharmonious problem (the fact the narration and the reality only are vaguely related) leads to learning to models that implement abstract thinking
●	    this is why humans do it
●	    (i mean the only reason we are capable of abstract thinking)
●	    otherwise why we would have ever needed to?
●	    how else could we we narrate ourselves back to harmonious thinking?
●	    aren't humans always in service to some kind of inner voice?
●	    had we created the concepts of logic as a pale attempt to create a new justification system in which we can talk about outloud?
●	    isn't it possible that all creatures are not just reacting to their environment but in fact thinking with some internal dialogue that to them makes sense?
●	    what would that dialog need to look like since it can recall pictures and sounds and emotions?
●	    is psychoanalysis an attempt to train new internal dialogs?
●	    can we (do we?) change the narrative in that dialog to see the world differently for moments and even sometimes to induce comforting emotions?
●	    dialog? (that takes two) with whom are we speaking to?
●	    is that why we have this notion we exist? maybe we don't actually exist, maybe the only thing that exists is whom we speak to?
●	    whatever it is we speak to (dialog with, argue) isn't that ourselves?
●	    when we speak to ourselves, should that follow rules that we consider important in order to claim clear thinking?
●	    these rules of "sounding right" are fine but also don't we have visual rules we use for picturing a consistent environment?
●	    that is when we visually imagine a situation do we impose physics that relicate the environment is some ways?
●	    can this picture language still work in a dialog-like manner?
●	    do we enjoy poetry or drums or music because the meter allows us to still feel the required dialog process and hear "sounds right" ?
●	    do we tell ourselves story scripts that justify what our environment is doing around us?
●	    if the story we are telling ourselves doesn't sound right or if it doesn't match the environment , what tools do we have to create harmony again?
●	    more story?
●	    since at best we can only create a barely adequate representation do we make up better and more fitting "words" ?
●	    can we use narration to gloss over these inadequacies by using excuse like things like "it just does that cuz it has its own reasons"?
●	    are we fine with that compartmentalization because it "sounds right"?
●	    the above questions i think we all can answer
●	    this is why i feel script theory can describe cognition, awareness and creativity
●	  * derdon (~derdon@p5B31C158.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #ai
●	    funny the path for that thinking machine above doesn't get us to a machine we can actually talk to :)
●	    (i mean from the get go)
●	    but it clearly describes what humans are
●	    (i hope i did it some justice that is)
●	    has anyone ever heard of an alternate AI theory with the capability described?
●	    (capability tho i mention above is built in .. that is that it must generate an internal dialog it finds pleasing)
●	   (and it adapts that dialog to fit situations regardless of how much it has to lie to make itself thinking sound right)
●	    again, has anyone ever heard of an alternate theory?  (I have not)
●	   (and this cognitive theory was created in the 1960s.. and since then I haven't heard one)
●	   i haven't seen anyone bother to try to code it
●	   so i believe until someone attempts to code this theory, or can come up with an alternate theory we won't have AGI
●	    to implement this theory though i admit we need tools like the N-dimensional DB
●	   we might have also need the CycL programming language since writing something like that in C sounds like a bit of work
●	    i don't mean for writing the N-dim Asher db, i am talking about the how modules properly access that DB
●	[58]   and when the access or programmer screwed up we need to see CycL backtraces (CycL calls these Logical Proofs)
●	    cycorp i shit you not.. only started working on this 3 years ago
●	    three years ago the "dialog language"
●	    30 years of screwing off pretending the cyc kb was important
●	    it was for pushing the limits of the CycL programing system
●	    but not for the "dialog kb"
●	    meaning i see the 30 years to be utter avoidance of thinking about AI
●	    and even today they don't know that the "dialog kb" is for anything of than some game :)  http://www.mathcraft.ai 
●	  <Asher> dmiles - as far as psychoanalysis that's right on
●	  <Asher> and my work is certainly in relation to tomkins
●	    hrrm i started looking up tomkins and didn't realize before he was so into pavlovian training
●	    (which is fine .. i just didn't notice that he was an embodiment nut)
●	  <Asher> yea he is
●	  <Asher> he is explicitly trying to rid us of freud
●	  <Asher> by returning to the body
●	    *nod*
●	    i guess i mix in "The Tomkins Blueprint" with having to narrate ourselves thru that blueprint     (that narration gives us the ability to think ourselves vs reactions)
●	    certainly the body (and its visceral reactions and trainability) plays a huge role
●	   i mean i think of these affects as being sent into our stories.. that is we make up stories to explain why we are experiencing them
●	     this way we can tell our minds what is going on.. i think it requires we repair or maintain the affects  as we parent this spoiled little brat that ourselves are though some stories are meant to create drama like when we yell at our wife and dog
●	   that is the body and mind loves the intensity of the effects even the ones that sicken it and yet it survives anyways

04:46] == logicmoo [181466f5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.20.102.245] has joined ##idni
[04:48] <logicmoo> teh entertainment value of most poetry is how much pattern or expectation can be broken without Observer rejection
[04:50] <logicmoo> like in Jazz improvisation.. of course the contract is to play the same 3 notes at the end of every bar
[04:51] <dmiles> hrrm Richard Bandler seems to be a good source in this line of thinking
[04:51] <Karov> logicmoo: humor too
[04:52] <Karov> and knowledge expansion - like drilling
[04:54] <dmiles> for sure.. drilling leverages that exact mechanism (I had not thought of that)
[04:55] <dmiles> or remembing "BBROYGBVGW"
[04:55] <dmiles> via "Bad Boys.."
[04:56] <dmiles> small post on mechnaized human i am using at work:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/ontolog-forum/humor%7Csort:relevance/ontolog-forum/SpYMguc9Msg/uG61qAEECAAJ
[04:56] <dmiles> humor*
[04:58] <dmiles> i guess that post is more about "laughter"
[04:59] == randee [uid239831@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-agzfrtsggnxinjts] has joined ##idni
[04:59] <Karov> 'cause this is exactly the inscribing/rejection boundary like a shockwave front, or ... phase boundary
[04:59] <Karov> like chaos/order one ;)
[05:01] <dmiles> inscribing rejection boundary
[05:01] <dmiles> oops that was supposed to be to google :P
[05:03] <dmiles> dispite knowing what you meant, it would have been nice to find discossions using that terminology
[05:04] <Karov> I improvised it just now
[05:04] <Karov> inscribing in a sense to become part of the structure which the observer is
[05:04] <Karov> not just reflecting, or something like that because this puts the ';reflector' as non-participant component
[05:05] <Karov> like the 'observer' in the copenhagen joke qm 'interpretation'
[05:06] <Karov> poetry, art, humor definitely hit spots on such a 'boundary' ... which we 'consume' now, they are prefabricated but just to be 'inscribed'
[05:06] <Karov> consciousness as currency of mind
[05:06] <Karov> derived from 'currency' etymology of something which flows
[05:07] <Karov> i.e. internalization / inscription of states and changes-of-states as states
[05:07] <Karov> in that sense Tegmark and many others most probably are right
[05:07] <Karov> about time =consciousness equivalence
[05:08] <Karov> as objectivity of subjective experience of time
[05:08] <Karov> past is the memory state
[05:08] <Karov> memory state includes self-reflections of the memory states

[05:08] <Karov> and of states which are change of states
[05:09] <Karov> may be this is the 'blockchain' of mind = the narrative
[05:09] <Karov> we do not tell it ourselves we ARE the narrative
[05:09] <Karov> *rr
[05:10] <dmiles> indeed.. well said
[05:11] <Karov> the trouble is the minuscule resources we have
[05:11] <Karov> I feel I most probably am right, that means - this is direction of thought which most probably will discover big treasures ... but it will take me decades and decades
[05:12] <Karov> to consume and digest all the OLD knowledge which exists
[05:12] <Karov> as Ohad many times pointed out about the vast 3000+ yrs old huge body of maths vs the shallow bag of tricks used by the 70-ish yrs old cs field maestros ;)
[05:13] <Karov> in fact it is undoable by unaided human brain cause the 'food' grows faster than the digestive capabilities
[05:13] <Karov> capacity
[05:14] <Karov> Tau will be the engine to cover those spaces
[05:16] <Karov> i.e. incl. a introspective almost instant transport system ;)
[05:17] <dmiles> instance transport system?
[05:18] <dmiles> instant*
[05:18] <Karov> if we visualize the world as a planet of formal logic islands and continents scattered in an ocean of natural languages on top of a vast magma ocean of non-verbality
[05:19] <Karov> instant transport system which gives to the Narrator quicker than the faster possible narration speed access to all poss. ... places
[05:22] <Karov> this will be like if the 'narrative=narrator' 'phase boundary out of the sudden becomes enormous , not a tunnel rock face to slowly graze and built-into-self the debris but a wormhole to
[05:22] <Karov> almost all the 'litosphere'
[05:25] <Karov> :) I felt it ... I just past the rejection boundary
[05:25] <Karov> not funny or aesthetic any more
[05:28] <dmiles> still relevant
05:18] <dmiles> just for fun, i did find someting on google (using your key words) about logic of scaling discussions  http://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/25008/1/49565Farrar.pdf <- second 1/2 of page 101