Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhuxv!mhuxt!techpub
From: techpub@mhuxt.UUCP (mcgrew)
Newsgroups: net.jokes
Subject: Re: Seminar announcement (party)
Message-ID: <295@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 08:56:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.295
Posted: Tue Oct 16 08:56:38 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 05:36:09 EDT
References: <2165@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 138

> From: Gary Cottrell  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                      University of Cottage Street
>                          Dept. of Dog Science
>                           55 Cottage Street
>                       Rochester, New York 14608
> 
> 
>                                SEMINAR
> 
> 
>                       Saturday, 20 October, 1984
>                             55 Cottage St.
>                               9:00 p.m.
> 
>             _M_o_d_e_l_l_i_n_g _t_h_e _I_n_t_e_n_t_i_o_n_a_l _B_e_h_a_v_i_o_r _o_f _t_h_e _D_o_g
> 
>                          Garrison W. Cottrell
> 
> 
>           Many of us, while  out  for  a  stroll,  have  had  the
>      experience   of  observing  a  dog  trotting  along,  alone,
>      obviously _g_o_i_n_g _s_o_m_e_w_h_e_r_e.  This raises many questions, such
>      as, "Where is he going?", "Why is he going there?", "Will it
>      be more fun than where I'm  going?",  and  so  forth.   Such
>      questions  motivate  us  to  postulate the existence of (and
>      hence the efficacy of  further  study  of)  the  intentional
>      behavior of the dog[1].
> 
>           We propose a highly parallel, neurologically  plausible
>      model  of  dog  behavior  based  on  a connectionist (neural
>      network) implementation  of  a  subset  of  Reiter's  (1980)
>      Default  Logic, as reported in Cottrell (1984).  As outlined
>      in that paper, there is a well specified mapping of  default
>      rules  to  connectionist  network  fragments  that implement
>      those rules, with the benefit that the network  operates  in
>      real  time  by  continuously updating the truth value of all
>      predicates in parallel[2] (thus  making  Doyle's  work,  and
>      perhaps  Doyle  himself,   superfluous).    Currently,   the
>      implementation   only   allows   inference  rules  with  one
>      universally quantified variable.  While inadequate for  many
>      purposes,  we  claim  that  this  is  all  we  need  for dog
>      modelling, since it appears that dogs can only  think  about
>      one thing at a time anyway[3].  In this work we  reinterpret
>      ____________________
>         [1]Grembowitz (1982) proposed a model  of  the  cat,  but
>      only  handled  the case of the cat tripping on catnip, cata-
>      tonically staring at the wallpaper for hours  with  sporadic
>      leaps  into  space.   This  simple  behavior  was  elegantly
>      modeled by the composition of only two standard UNIX  calls,
>      random(3c) and sleep(1).
>         [2]The observant reader will recognize a certain similar-
>      ity to British Motor Corporation's  oft-lamented  experiment
>      of  shoehorning an Austin Healey six cylinder engine into an
>      MGB.  Early results support the contention that our  bastard
>      child of a similar "marriage made in hell" will be more suc-
>      cessful.
>         [3]It is interesting to note that the set of things a dog
>      can think about as noted in "Dog:  A  Canine  Architecture",
>      Cottrell  (1981)  may  be _f_i_n_i_t_e and limited to food, squir-
>      rels, and other dogs.  Further, the dog we have studied  ap-
>      pears  to only have three responses to other dogs, depending
>      on their sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      Reiter's  default  inference  rules  as  precondition-action
>      behavior rules.  An example behavioral rule is:
> 
>                                 Chase(x)
>                          -----------------------
>                          Moving(x) : Squirrel(x)
> 
> 
>           An  English  interpretation  of  this  rule   is,   "if
>      something  is  moving,  and  we  don't have evidence that it
>      isn't a squirrel, then chase it." This models  the  observed
>      behavior  of  Jelly Bean chasing a paper bag.  The real time
>      behavior of our implementation captures his stopping when it
>      turns  out  not  to  be  a  squirrel,  since that blocks the
>      inference of Chase(x), which then  slowly  decays,  much  as
>      Jelly  Bean  slows  to  a  confused halt.  (As a simplifying
>      assumption, we ignore his subsequent pretense of not  having
>      been  chasing  it  at  all.)  Of  course,  we  still have to
>      determine whether there might still be  some  peanut  butter
>      and  jelly in the bag, but this can be easily handled by the
>      addition of more rules.  Note that since we are  building  a
>      model  of  behavior, the consequent of the rule is an action
>      (Chase(x)), not  an  addition  of  the  useless  information
>      Squirrel(x) to the already overtaxed knowledge base[4].
> 
>           We have a grandiose long term research  plan  to  model
>      the  entire  mind  of  the  dog,  which  will generate grant
>      proposals _a_d _n_a_u_s_e_u_m.  One of the new tools we plan  to  use
>      in  this  research  is  the  previously unnoticed ability to
>      access the goal structures of the dog through measurement of
>      tail wagging (for a discussion of some other aspects of tail
>      wagging, including tail recursion,  see  "The  Dog  Papers",
>      Benson  & Sloan (1984)).  We claim that tail wagging will do
>      for dog modelling research what reaction times have done for
>      psychology.   For  example,  we  can  use  this technique to
>      assess the goal priorities of the dog.  If we  ask  "do  you
>      want to go out?" we get a vigorous wagging response, whereas
>      if we ask, "do you want to stay?", we get no  tail  wagging.
>      Further,  we  can map out all of the levels of the system by
>      studying  the  _t_i_m_e  _c_o_u_r_s_e   of   the   wagging   behavior.
>      Demonstrations  of  the  the  time  course  of  the  wagging
>      response will be provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      ____________________
>         [4]As  evidence  that the knowledge base is already full,
>      one only needs to note that when Squirrel(x)  holds,  and  x
>      climbs a tree, the dog repeatedly attempts to climb the tree
>      by jumping on the trunk, even though this tactic  has  never
>      been observed to succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Copies of the troff source available on request)
> gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary (USENET)
> 	gary@rochester (ARPA)