Expert System for predictions

[Guest guest]

Hello,I have seen a number of software programs that perform predictions. But,

unfortunately they are nowhere near correct predictions. Most of the programs

provide just general descriptions. Is it really impossible to create a program

that works like a real predictor?If you consider the way humans do predictions,

we find that it relies on a complex rule system with interrelated rules.

Programs currently do not interrelate the rules and hence come up with "weird"

predictions that are even contradictory sometimes.However, to me, it does not

seem that it will impossble to create an expert system that does have

interrelated rules and can produce 'balanced' predictions. And the best way to

develop it according to me is to have a open source development in which every

one can contribute. Ofcourse there will be differences

in the degree of effectiveness for predictive rules in the system. But, maybe we

can rely on our knowledgeable Gurus for such factors. Is any organization

investing in such an effort?Thanks & Regards,ManuArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Satyam Bruyat Priyam Bruyat

 

Manu,

I used to find the interpretations made by computer programs contradictory too!

Now I think I understand the reasons for so many contradictions. I also think

the it will be very difficult for computer to match the interpretations of a

good astrologer. computer software, however is an excellent aid for an

astrologer, especially learners.

Best Regards

Ramesh

Manu Batura [manubatura ]Sent:

Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:12 AMvedic astrologySubject:

[vedic astrology] Expert System for predictionsHello,I have seen a number of

software programs that perform predictions. But, unfortunately they are nowhere

near correct predictions. Most of the programs provide just general

descriptions. Is it really impossible to create a program that works like a

real predictor?If you consider the way humans do predictions, we find that it

relies on a complex rule system with interrelated rules. Programs currently do

not interrelate the rules and hence come up with "weird" predictions that are

even contradictory sometimes.However, to me, it does not seem that it will

impossble to create an expert system that does have interrelated rules and can

produce 'balanced' predictions. And the best way to develop it according to me

is to have a open source development in which every one can contribute.

Ofcourse there will be differences in the degree of effectiveness for

predictive rules in the system. But, maybe we can rely on our knowledgeable

Gurus for such factors. Is any organization investing in such an effort?Thanks

& Regards,ManuArchives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail

to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on

us ....... Your use of

is subject to the

[Guest guest]

dear manu and rameshji

the imp point is the generation of data base

so that the expert system can be trained. this require the great

effort, but i think a beginning can be made by our gurus itself

ajoy

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "Ramesh Gangaramani"

<ramesh.gangaramani@a...> wrote:

> Satyam Bruyat Priyam Bruyat

>

> Manu,

> I used to find the interpretations made by computer programs

contradictory

> too! Now I think I understand the reasons for so many

contradictions. I also

> think the it will be very difficult for computer to match the

> interpretations of a good astrologer. computer software, however is

an

> excellent aid for an astrologer, especially learners.

> Best Regards

> Ramesh

>

> Manu Batura [manubatura]

> Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:12 AM

> vedic astrology

> [vedic astrology] Expert System for predictions

>

>

> Hello,

>

> I have seen a number of software programs that perform

predictions.

> But, unfortunately they are nowhere near correct predictions.

Most of

> the programs provide just general descriptions. Is it really

> impossible to create a program that works like a real predictor?

>

> If you consider the way humans do predictions, we find that it

relies

> on a complex rule system with interrelated rules. Programs

currently

> do not interrelate the rules and hence come up with "weird"

> predictions that are even contradictory sometimes.

>

> However, to me, it does not seem that it will impossble to create

an

> expert system that does have interrelated rules and can

> produce 'balanced' predictions. And the best way to develop it

> according to me is to have a open source development in which

every

> one can contribute. Ofcourse there will be differences in the

degree

> of effectiveness for predictive rules in the system. But, maybe we

> can rely on our knowledgeable Gurus for such factors.

>

> Is any organization investing in such an effort?

>

> Thanks & Regards,

> Manu

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh & Ajoy,

 

I think existing systems work on the basis on using a true/false

relation. If the rule is matched, then 'A' else 'B'. This definitely

will not work.

 

Maybe what is required is a rule base with weights given to rules,

something like fuzzy logic.

 

Let us say that we divide the human state into variables like

happiness, sorrows, education, satisfaction, etc. Different rules

should then increase/decrease the values of these tendencies. Some

rules shall have more weight than others. Now the important thing is

that such tendencies need to be correlated with factors causing such

tendencies.

 

For instance, the rules should allow the computer to predict that the

person is unhappy because of his son's illness. This will require

some thinking.

 

Also, Ajoyji, as you have already pointed out, the database is the

most important element. Moreover, it is very important that the

database be separate from the source code in order to be able to add

to the knowledge of the system.

 

I wonder how difficult it is going to be?

 

Computers do not have intuition. But, is prediction based on

intuition? I don't think so. Our Rishis were scientists how could see

the effect due to the placement of the planets. We do not have the

same abilities now. But our Rishis did write down the rules so that

we may use them and gain from them. If we can use the rules, why

can't a computer. Maybe the software will be a complex beast, but why

should it be impossible?

 

Thanks & Regards,

Manu

 

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "ajoypb" <ajoypb> wrote:

> dear manu and rameshji

> the imp point is the generation of data base

> so that the expert system can be trained. this require the great

> effort, but i think a beginning can be made by our gurus itself

> ajoy

>

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, "Ramesh Gangaramani"

> <ramesh.gangaramani@a...> wrote:

> > Satyam Bruyat Priyam Bruyat

> >

> > Manu,

> > I used to find the interpretations made by computer programs

> contradictory

> > too! Now I think I understand the reasons for so many

> contradictions. I also

> > think the it will be very difficult for computer to match the

> > interpretations of a good astrologer. computer software, however

is

> an

> > excellent aid for an astrologer, especially learners.

> > Best Regards

> > Ramesh

> >

> > Manu Batura [manubatura]

> > Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:12 AM

> > vedic astrology

> > [vedic astrology] Expert System for predictions

> >

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > I have seen a number of software programs that perform

> predictions.

> > But, unfortunately they are nowhere near correct predictions.

> Most of

> > the programs provide just general descriptions. Is it really

> > impossible to create a program that works like a real predictor?

> >

> > If you consider the way humans do predictions, we find that it

> relies

> > on a complex rule system with interrelated rules. Programs

> currently

> > do not interrelate the rules and hence come up with "weird"

> > predictions that are even contradictory sometimes.

> >

> > However, to me, it does not seem that it will impossble to

create

> an

> > expert system that does have interrelated rules and can

> > produce 'balanced' predictions. And the best way to develop it

> > according to me is to have a open source development in which

> every

> > one can contribute. Ofcourse there will be differences in the

> degree

> > of effectiveness for predictive rules in the system. But, maybe

we

> > can rely on our knowledgeable Gurus for such factors.

> >

> > Is any organization investing in such an effort?

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> > Manu

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> > Terms of

> Service.

[Guest guest]

Oh yeah, after all our masters in the name of science have been

saying that actions are embodiment of beliefs, which is the impetus

of Expert Systems, Learning Systems.

 

Begging question is not science.

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkat,

 

Can you please elaborate your point?

 

Thanks & Regards,

Manu

 

 

--- venkateshwara_reddy

<venkateshwara_reddy wrote:

> Oh yeah, after all our masters in the name of

> science have been

> saying that actions are embodiment of beliefs, which

> is the impetus

> of Expert Systems, Learning Systems.

>

> Begging question is not science.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

All these expert systems presuppose human cognitive abilities as

mathematical objects. This is the case of being phenomenon.

 

Presupposition: Mathematicalization of cognitive abilities

Explanandum(that which needs to be explained) = above presupposition

Explananus(explanation) = filling gaps

 

Never do I see science(social and natural) in these explanations.

 

Same thing applies to evolution theory, Aryan Invasion Theory,

Creation of 'Hinduism', 'Buddism', 'Sikhism' as religions by 17th cy

Christian scholars, et al.

 

Classical "begging question" or "Petitio Principi" case.

 

 

 

 

>

> Can you please elaborate your point?

>

> Thanks & Regards,

> Manu

>

>

> --- venkateshwara_reddy

> <venkateshwara_reddy> wrote:

> > Oh yeah, after all our masters in the name of

> > science have been

> > saying that actions are embodiment of beliefs, which

> > is the impetus

> > of Expert Systems, Learning Systems.

> >

> > Begging question is not science.

[Guest guest]

Relevant URL

 

Cognitive psychology and computation:

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Guest guest]

Hello Venkatji,

 

I am not very sure whether I understood your argument.

However it seems that you are refering to your

conclusion that human cognitive abilities cannot be

acquired by computers. Atleast for now!

 

Maybe you are right. But, I still have many questions.

 

 

1. Does a computer really need all the cognitive

abilities of humans to perform predictions?

 

We need to understand the thinking process that is

used by an expert to analyse a horoscope. If the

thinking process cannot be laid down in primitive

steps, then there would be little hope that anything

at all could be accomplished in this area.

 

Ofcouse, without the help of a learned person in this

field, any attempt to make such a system is futile.

 

 

2. Is astrology a science?

 

If it is and is based on the rules of prediction, why

should it be difficult for a computer to apply the

same rules.

 

3. Maybe right now our knowledge in this field is

limited and hence fuzzy. But, wouldn't it be

appropriate to convert this knowledge into something

more formal that can be reapplied by anyone at any

time?

 

Right now, scholars devote all their life to this

science in order to learn hidden meanings. What is

required is a system that can add to the knowledge

that we already possess as we learn more.

 

I can understand that most of what I mentioned might

seem like overstatements due to my lack of adequte

knowledge in this area.

 

But I wish we could implement such a system with the

help of our Gurus.

 

Thanks & Regards,

Manu

 

 

 

 

--- venkateshwara_reddy

<venkateshwara_reddy wrote:

> All these expert systems presuppose human cognitive

> abilities as

> mathematical objects. This is the case of being

> phenomenon.

>

> Presupposition: Mathematicalization of cognitive

> abilities

> Explanandum(that which needs to be explained) =

> above presupposition

> Explananus(explanation) = filling gaps

>

> Never do I see science(social and natural) in these

> explanations.

>

> Same thing applies to evolution theory, Aryan

> Invasion Theory,

> Creation of 'Hinduism', 'Buddism', 'Sikhism' as

> religions by 17th cy

> Christian scholars, et al.

>

> Classical "begging question" or "Petitio Principi"

> case.

>

>

>

>

> >

> > Can you please elaborate your point?

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> > Manu

> >

> >

> > --- venkateshwara_reddy

> > <venkateshwara_reddy> wrote:

> > > Oh yeah, after all our masters in the name of

> > > science have been

> > > saying that actions are embodiment of beliefs,

> which

> > > is the impetus

> > > of Expert Systems, Learning Systems.

> > >

> > > Begging question is not science.

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There is something called "experience" ill understood by 'modern'

Indians(from whence are Indians succumbed to modernization, a feature

of christianity) and Western Philosophical traditions.

 

Despite books and articles in many, many disciplines bearing the

title, the nature of 'experience' is hardly studied. More often than

not, it is reduced to thoughts, feelings, perception (or even

sensation) and action. None of these, either severally or jointly

exhausts experience because one could experience any or all of them

as well. (One can experience thoughts, feelings, etc.)

 

Indian traditions including naastika but not atheism, nor theism

sprouted from belief systems that christianity, islam, judaism are

had given importance to 'experience' and centrality of the latter.

 

> Ofcouse, without the help of a learned person in this

> field, any attempt to make such a system is futile.

 

To become jyotisha, one need not master books available on market.

Some other qualifications(check prasna maarga) are needed besides

algorithmization! What these are can be discerned in the purpose of

Indian traditions excluding modern missions spreading hindu faiths.

Of course, I cant help so-called 'modern' hindoos sunk in 'faith

in', 'believe in' some deva, for ancient Indian traditions are praxy-

based but not doxy-based.

 

 

 

> 2. Is astrology a science?

>

> If it is and is based on the rules of prediction, why

> should it be difficult for a computer to apply the

> same rules.

 

I dont know about astrology; Jyotisha is more than mere applying

rules, exceptions, meta-rules and meta-exceptions; is also linked

with 'experience'.

 

 

What is needed to explain Bharateeya jyOtisha is 'theory of the

object that jyotisha is' but not 'theorizing the latter'. The former

is science, whereas latter is re-describing the same in new

framework, which in turn distorts and trivializes.

 

 

Having Scientific credentials in natural sciences does not entail

applying scientific methods in human sciences that Indian traditions

were focussed on. To understand our traditions, we need to understand

Western culture. It is as if understanding mother-in-law were a

prerequisite of understanding own mom. That is the state --everybody

touts that he is scientific, modern, rationalistic, logical-- we are

in.

 

Good luck w/ your ES endeavor.

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkatji,

 

You may be right. Experience does count. Diagnosis can't be done by a

computer as yet and we go to a doctor. I am also aware that a few

people devote their entire life to study this field to gain from that

experience. However, aren't the two forms of experiences different?

Jyotish, (from whatever little I know about this field), is based on

analysis of the arrangement of the planets. And experience in jyotish

should be the knowledge gained through analysis. A doctor uses his

senses to know about the patient, whereas for a jyotish, the

arrangement of the planets is all he has before analysis begins.

 

I know I may be incorrect [and usually this is the case ], but I

would request our Gurus to illustrate some of their analysis that

does not use a rule already written. And even if there does not exist

any rule already writeen, what is it that they use that can't be

written down as a rule. We need to understand by what is meant

by 'experience' in Jyotish.

 

Regards,

Manu

 

 

vedic astrology, "venkateshwara_reddy"

<venkateshwara_reddy> wrote:

> There is something called "experience" ill understood by 'modern'

> Indians(from whence are Indians succumbed to modernization, a

feature

> of christianity) and Western Philosophical traditions.

>

> Despite books and articles in many, many disciplines bearing the

> title, the nature of 'experience' is hardly studied. More often

than

> not, it is reduced to thoughts, feelings, perception (or even

> sensation) and action. None of these, either severally or jointly

> exhausts experience because one could experience any or all of them

> as well. (One can experience thoughts, feelings, etc.)

>

> Indian traditions including naastika but not atheism, nor theism

> sprouted from belief systems that christianity, islam, judaism are

> had given importance to 'experience' and centrality of the latter.

>

> > Ofcouse, without the help of a learned person in this

> > field, any attempt to make such a system is futile.

>

> To become jyotisha, one need not master books available on market.

> Some other qualifications(check prasna maarga) are needed besides

> algorithmization! What these are can be discerned in the purpose of

> Indian traditions excluding modern missions spreading hindu faiths.

> Of course, I cant help so-called 'modern' hindoos sunk in 'faith

> in', 'believe in' some deva, for ancient Indian traditions are

praxy-

> based but not doxy-based.

>

>

>

> > 2. Is astrology a science?

> >

> > If it is and is based on the rules of prediction, why

> > should it be difficult for a computer to apply the

> > same rules.

>

> I dont know about astrology; Jyotisha is more than mere applying

> rules, exceptions, meta-rules and meta-exceptions; is also linked

> with 'experience'.

>

>

> What is needed to explain Bharateeya jyOtisha is 'theory of the

> object that jyotisha is' but not 'theorizing the latter'. The

former

> is science, whereas latter is re-describing the same in new

> framework, which in turn distorts and trivializes.

>

>

> Having Scientific credentials in natural sciences does not entail

> applying scientific methods in human sciences that Indian

traditions

> were focussed on. To understand our traditions, we need to

understand

> Western culture. It is as if understanding mother-in-law were a

> prerequisite of understanding own mom. That is the state --

everybody

> touts that he is scientific, modern, rationalistic, logical-- we

are

> in.

>

> Good luck w/ your ES endeavor.

[Guest guest]

> Experience does count.

 

The 'experience' I was referring to is at loggerheads with common

sense notion of 'experience', such as, 'Mr X being software engineer

for 15 years, Astrologer for 3 years, successful neurosurgeon having

100 publications'.

[Guest guest]

But Venkatji, what is stopping us from using the knowledge gained

during those years. In fact that is the goal of the system.

 

Experience, in the context of Jyotish is not something like having

the skill to use your hands as in surgury. It is also not like having

the ability to learn and apply computer languages.

 

the problem, it it does exist, should be related to the problems in

using the knowledge gained. that is what we should be analyse if we

want to understand the process the jyotish uses.

 

thanks & regards,

manu

 

vedic astrology, "venkateshwara_reddy"

<venkateshwara_reddy> wrote:

> > Experience does count.

>

> The 'experience' I was referring to is at loggerheads with common

> sense notion of 'experience', such as, 'Mr X being software

engineer

> for 15 years, Astrologer for 3 years, successful neurosurgeon

having

> 100 publications'.

[Guest guest]

There are many ways to learn.

 

a) Theoritical learning dominates in cultures influenced by religions

that christianity, islam, judaism are.

 

b) practical learning dominates in human traditional cultures

 

 

Case a) is the product of belief systems; whereas, case b), of

practical systems.

 

Of course, Western scholars and Westernized scholars whether in India

or in Africa nowadays reverberate the old theology truths of other

cultures that Africans, Indians, Red Indians do have religion or

belief system. No empirical research is done on this aspect; except

majority vote in scholarship circles. From whence are majority

considered to check veracity of a claim?

 

In case a), people in religious culture that West is theorize many

things before they experience. For example, 15th cy Jesuit scholars

wrote tracts about Indian heathens before inhabiting in India. What

did they produce of Indians? Theological notions that Indians are

snake, rat, donkey, Cow, Penis worshippers. Our brethern visited

India and experienced the 'structured experience'. What

differentiates the 21st cy so-called scientific social theorists

from missionaries is only 'refinement of verbiage in modern social

sciences'.

 

 

In case b), 'Structured experience' has no place.

 

 

Modern Indian man is heading in the direction of Western way; and his

experience is akin to that of westerner. This causes our

inaccessibility to cognitive experiences of Ancient Indians.

 

Interrogation of Experience is key for gaining knowledge. Experience

does not even need an agent.

 

In Indian case, abhyaasa is at odds with doctor practing something,

Programming practing some lingos. These modern practices are not

abhyaasa yet practice.

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "Manu Batura"

<manubatura> wrote:

> what is stopping us from using the knowledge gained

> during those years. In fact that is the goal of the system.

>

> Experience, in the context of Jyotish is not something like having

> the skill to use your hands as in surgury. It is also not like

having

> the ability to learn and apply computer languages.

>

> the problem, it it does exist, should be related to the problems in

> using the knowledge gained. that is what we should be analyse if we

> want to understand the process the jyotish uses.

>

> thanks & regards,

> manu