Yeserday we reasoned:
> Perhaps one way to begin any session of troubleshooting is to type in
> cats eat fish [ESCape] -- instead of [RETURN]. In that way, it may be
> possible to use the .psi command to see exactly what activations have
> been created for the first three concepts -- and then to go from there.
Just now we followed the above instructions and .psi told us:
164 : 72 4 0 0 5 73 72 to CATS 168 : 73 3 72 72 8 74 73 to EAT 173 : 74 2 73 73 5 0 74 to FISH time: psi act jux pre pos seq enx
Immediately we ask, why are there such low activations (4, 3, 2)
on the three
new concepts for which we typed in words?
Today we realized that we have a chance here to examine our
troubleshooting techniques and to write them up in the #debug
area of the webpage for any pertinent mind-module. We could also
write up a general debugging document for the artificial mind,
but there is a crying need to flesh out the mind-module pages.
So therefore one immediate question is, which module are we
debugging here? Well, where did those rather low (4, 3, 2)
activations come from?
Let's use an already known word with "robots eat fish" and see
what activations we get. Aha, we get one higher activation amid:
166 : 39 23 0 0 5 72 39 to ROBOTS 170 : 72 3 39 39 8 73 72 to EAT 175 : 73 2 72 72 5 0 73 to FISH time: psi act jux pre pos seq enx
So apparently our AI is setting really low activations for
new words coming in. The Moving Wave Algorithm of
C:\Forums\E-Mail\AGI_902.txt (stored locally) and of
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg02527.html
perhaps mandates such a state of affairs, but the differential
now looks far too severe in the light of the more recent
developments of the
psiDamp module and the
psiDecay module.
We now think that residual, subconscious activations have to
be set at the top of a middle activation-tier by
psiDamp, so
that
psiDecay may let the activations slowly dwindle away.
At some point in our #debug material we should perhaps suggest to
AI coders that they comment out any automatic asking of questions,
so that the natural interplay of old and new concepts may be
observed without interference in the setting of normal activations.
Now it seems that we have found the problem in the HCI module:
\ 32 uract ! \ 26jul2002 Let PARSER decrement input "act".
\ 32 uract ! \ Depressing new concepts to boost old concepts.
5 uract ! \ Allow KB input but no influence on chain of thought.
On the contrary, our new
psiDamp/
psiDecay work means that we do indeed want momentarily recent inputs to have a subconscious
influence on chains of thought. We want ideas in the subconscious
to lurk just below the surface and to sink slowly into oblivion.
Our September 2005 work on the Moving Wave and our mon23jan2006
work on two-tiered conceptual activation have given us a great sense of
confidence as we approach the first really "working" model of our AI
and our first official file-release of Mind.Forth from SourceForge.
We now see more clearly the space in which we need to work, and we
are tantalized by the psiDamp/ psiDecay implications for consciousness.
Now we try setting uract to 31 in HCI -- for the top of the second tier.
49-64 can be a buffer for increments of activation during thinking.
32-48 and above can be the consciousness area of the Moving Wave.
17-31 and below can be the subconscious area of psiDamp and psiDecay.
The idea is that we can have psiDamp knock a concept down to about 31.
Then psiDecay lets the conceptual activation slowly sink further, but
the subconscious concepts are still available for inclusion in a thought.
With uract set at 31, now we get:
164 : 72 30 0 0 5 73 72 to CATS 168 : 73 29 72 72 8 74 73 to EAT 173 : 74 28 73 73 5 0 74 to FISH time: psi act jux pre pos seq enxand
166 : 39 49 0 0 5 72 39 to ROBOTS 170 : 72 29 39 39 8 73 72 to EAT 175 : 73 28 72 72 5 0 73 to FISH time: psi act jux pre pos seq enx
Now we should upload the 27feb06C.F Mind.Forth file to
http://mind.sourceforge.net/mind4th.html just to show the flag.