Jim, I think what you're describing here has relevance for schemas. However, unless you have the relativist context pegged down, the schemas remain just schemas in a non-relativist universe. Somehow you'll need to tie it all together by means of hierarchy. You'll need to think out of the box some more on this one, until you've solved the repetitive, heuristic algorithm, which acts as a 2-sided sword. E.g., What if there was a 3rd supercat who lived in the box with the other 2, one that was immune to toxins and electricity?
________________________________ From: Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2019 19:32 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Re: A mathematics of concpetual relations? Mike, I again apologize for my strident and aggressive responses. I honestly do not mean to be disrespectful of the remarks that have been made in this thread.I just have a way of expressing myself which comes across as a little rough at times. Let me give you an example of something that I just thought about. Suppose I decided to use humongous numbers - maybe a million bits - but with the intention only to use a small part of it at a time for any computation. The bit positions might have some kind of meaning or some directive related to meaning. Then how can I efficiently represent these huge numbers in which only tiny disparate bits are relevant? This becomes a traditional compression problem. So suddenly, just because I am thinking about this in a special way, the impossible part becomes very possible - given that I might be able to come up with algorithms that could effectively work on these compressed numbers without having to decompress them first. This is an interesting thought. What makes it interesting is that I am not limited to some mundane application of a tired method like using vectors mapped onto 3-dimension space using traditional computational arithmetic or something. The freedom of thinking outside the box, even though it will usually be unsuccessful, illuminates whole new vistas. Jim Bromer On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:23 PM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com<mailto:jazzbo...@gmail.com>> wrote: mean't "wasn't being dismissive". Typing too fast On 6/11/19, Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com<mailto:jazzbo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Jim, It just reminded me of the Gardenfors work -- I was being at all > dismissive of your posts. I was just pointing the work out in case you > were not familiar with it. On the whole, I'm not dismissive of > anybody's ideas in AGI. It's all a wide open space IMO. > > On 6/11/19, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com<mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> I remember that someone kept dismissing my notion of conceptual >> relativism >> and finally he mentioned some book that had been written 40 or 50 years >> ago >> which had mentioned that concepts were relative. I wondered - could it be >> true? Could someone have examined conceptual relativism decades ago? I >> did >> not find the book that he mentioned but I did find references to it and I >> found work that was done by the authors around the time the book was >> published. The authors mentioned a lot about the fact that concepts are >> relative and nothing about the notion that concepts are relativistic. It >> would be tedious of me to go over the difference again, but there is a >> major difference. The idea that I am talking about something that had >> been >> settled and the closed 20 or 50 years ago is dismissive. But it is also >> amusing because it means you are all chasing the latest fads (which are >> admittedly making great advances) while leaving the field of my special >> interests free, open, and unsullied for me. So thank you for not getting >> it. (I am not being cranky, I really believe that we are representative >> of >> the areas of interest that other people are pursuing, some much more >> effectively than we are, and this mini sampling indicates that there is >> something here that might be worthwhile for me to examine partly because >> there is not going to be much competition.) >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mike Archbold >> <jazzbo...@gmail.com<mailto:jazzbo...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >>> This topic reminds me of this book from almost 20 years ago: >>> >>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/conceptual-spaces >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/11/19, keghnf...@gmail.com<mailto:keghnf...@gmail.com> >>> <keghnf...@gmail.com<mailto:keghnf...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > Generative Neural Networks, GAN. >>> > This give give a relation from stating image or data to another. >>> > >>> > Latent Space Human Face Synthesis | Two Minute Papers #191: >>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR6M0MQBo2w >>> > >>> > A programmer select two images or data points. >>> > A programmer put in 50 percent value into a GAM and train it to be >>> > 50 >>> > percent transformation >>> > between to faces. This 50 percent value is called a "latent value" >>> > >>> > Latent value can used for mapping distance in weight space. >>> > >>> https://towardsdatascience.com/graduating-in-gans-going-from-understanding-generative-adversarial-networks-to-running-your-own-39804c283399 >>> > >>> > The latent value can be used to make movement vectors through weight >>> > space: >>> > https://poloclub.github.io/ganlab/ >>> > >>> > Unsupervised GAN's are the way of the brain, artificial or real: >>> > >>> https://www.academia.edu/37275998/A_Nice_Artificial_General_Intelligence_How_To_Make_A_Nice_Artificial_General_Intelligence Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T395236743964cb4b-Ma00506f45706e3689aefc5f0> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T395236743964cb4b-M20e598165dea2b1e293914b2 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
