3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
7 / 3
Mentions
r the latter are learned via MOSES or via some other means. The textual realization of Combo resembles LISP with less syntactic sugar. Internally a Combo program is represented as a program tree. • Composer: In the PLN design, a rule is denoted a composer if it needs premises for generating its conse
ve its fingers to pick up a cup, coordinating its movements with its visual perceptions. It's certainly possible to represent this sort of thing in Combo, but Combo may be an awkward tool. However, if one represents low-level procedures like this using another method, e.g. learned cell assemblies in a
the question of programs in what programming language, and in this context we have made a fairly traditional choice, using a special language called Combo that is essentially a minor variant of LISP, and supplying Combo with a set of customized primitives intended to reduce the length of the typical p
Mathias. Optimization using disributed genetic algorithms. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Edited by H Schwefel and R Manner, 1990. 5204. R. Sun and X. Zhang. Top-down versus bottom-up learning in cognitive skill acquisition. Cognitive Systems Research, 5, 2004. Tes59. Lucien TesniEre. Elem
r the latter are learned via MOSES or via some other means. The textual realization of Combo resembles LISP with less syntactic sugar. Internally a Combo program is represented as a program tree. • Composer: In the PLN design, a rule is denoted a composer if it needs premises for generating its conse
p the rules might profitably be ported into the Atomspace as ImplicationLinks. • Representation Building: A stage within MOSES, wherein a candidate Combo program tree (within a deme) is modified by replacing one or more tree nodes with alternative tree nodes, thus obtaining a new, different candidate
2000. SV99. A. J. Storkey and R. Valabregue. The basins of attraction of a new hopfield learning rule. Neural Networks, 12:869-876, 1999. $204. R. Sun and X. 2hang. Top-down versus bottom-up learning in cognitive skill acquisition. Cognitive Systems Research, 5, 2004. TC97. M. Tomasello and .1. C
d up the rules might profitably be ported into the Atomspace as ImplicationLinks. Representation Building: A stage within MOSES, wherein a candidate Combo program tree (within a deme) is modified by replacing one or more tree nodes with alternative tree nodes, thus obtaining a new, different candidate p
her the latter are learned via MOSES or via some other means. The textual realization of Combo resembles LISP with less syntactic sugar. Internally a Combo program is represented as a program tree. e Composer: In the PLN design, a rule is denoted a composer if it needs premises for generating its conseq
ub, 2000. SV99. A. J. Storkey and R. Valabregue. The basins of attraction of a new hopfield learning rule. Neural Networks, 12:869-876, 1999. SZ04, R. Sun and X. Zhang. Top-down versus bottom-up learning in cognitive skill acquisition. Cognitive Systems Research, 5, 2004. TC97. M. Tomasello and J. Call
Entities connected to both Combo and R. Sun

Marc Rich
PERSONOpenCog
ORGANIZATIONPredicateNodes
ORGANIZATIONMindAgents
PERSONConceptNodes
ORGANIZATIONPredicateNode
LOCATIONCogPrime
ORGANIZATIONTruthValues
ORGANIZATIONthe Webmind AI Engine
ORGANIZATIONDeSTIN
ORGANIZATION
Marvin Minsky
PERSONImplicationLinks
ORGANIZATIONNumberNode
ORGANIZATIONSTICurrency
LOCATIONVariableAtoms
ORGANIZATIONAttentionalFocus
ORGANIZATIONFrameNet
ORGANIZATIONCassio Pennachin
PERSONNil Geisweiller
PERSONPei Wang
PERSON