[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Marvin Minsky's original memo on frames

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:49:17 +0000
Message-id: <FDFBC56B2482EE48850DB651ADF7FEB0352FF8A8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This original definition of Fahlman's seems nearly equivalent (isomorphic?) to 
production rules in expert systems, perhaps with the agenda built-in (depending 
on how you define "available for access at once"), no?

By the way, I really liked Fahlman's NETL, back in the day. 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-

>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa

>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 11:59 AM

>To: [ontolog-forum]

>Subject: [ontolog-forum] Marvin Minsky's original memo on frames


>As Pat Hayes observed, this forum has been rehashing many ideas that

>have been kicked around in AI and related fields for a long time. One

>of the "oldies but goodies" is the term 'frame', which is now used for

>a very watered-down version of a much more complex and richer notion

>that Marvin Minsky presented in his famous AI Memo of 1974.


>Most people who talk about frames don't realize that the original

>definition was introduced in an unpublished essay by Scott Fahlman,

>who was a graduate student at MIT at the time.  Minsky adopted that

>word and quoted a large excerpt from Fahlman's essay.  He also

>quoted and related many other sources in AI and cognitive science.


>I recently happened to re-read that memo, and I was impressed by its

>relevance to the issues discussed in Ontolog Forum. That 40-year-old

>memo is still a good summary of many research problems today.  See

>the URL and excerpts below.


>And by the way, Fahlman's most successful ;-) innovation was the

>sideways smiley face:  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm






>Source: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html


>Fahlman's original definition, quoted by Minsky:


>> Frame Verification: I envision a data base in which related sets

>> of facts and demons are grouped into packets, any number of which

>> can be activated or made available for access at once. A packet can

>> contain any number of other packets (recursively), in the sense that

>> if the containing packet is activated, the contained packets are

>> activated as well, and any data items in them become available unless

>> they are specifically modified or canceled. Thus, by activating a few

>> appropriate packets, the system can create a tailor-made execution

>> environment containing only the relevant portion of its global

>> knowledge and an appropriate set of demons. Sometimes, of course,

>> it will have to add specific new packets to the active set in order

>> to deal with some special situation, but this inconvenience will be

>> far less than the burden of constantly tripping over unwanted

>> knowledge or triggering spurious demons.


>Observation by the psychologist Max Wertheimer, quoted by Minsky:


>> If one tries to describe processes of genuine thinking in terms of

>> formal traditional logic, the result is often unsatisfactory; one has,

>> then, a series of correct operations, but the sense of the process and

>> what was vital, forceful, creative in it seems somehow to have evaporated

>> in the formulations.


>Minsky's opening paragraph:


>> It seems to me that the ingredients of most theories both in Artificial

>> Intelligence and in Psychology have been on the whole too minute, local,

>> and unstructured to account – either practically or phenomenologically –

>> for the effectiveness of common-sense thought. The "chunks" of reasoning,

>> language, memory, and "perception" ought to be larger and more structured;

>> their factual and procedural contents must be more intimately connected

>> in order to explain the apparent power and speed of mental activities.


>Minsky's closing paragraph:


>> I cannot state strongly enough my conviction that the preoccupation with

>> Consistency, so valuable for Mathematical Logic, has been incredibly

>> destructive to those working on models of mind. At the popular level it

>> has produced a weird conception of the potential capabilities of machines

>> in general. At the "logical" level it has blocked efforts to represent

>> ordinary knowledge, by presenting an unreachable image of a corpus of

>> context-free "truths" that can stand separately by themselves. This

>> obsession has kept us from seeing that thinking begins with defective

>> networks that are slowly (if ever) refined and updated.



>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

>Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/

>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

>To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J


Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>