I meant if the knowledge that had been generated before was not meaningful then there might be no way out to keep the program from just generating more meaningless propositions.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > This issue of the verifiability of a proposition is related to AGI (of > course.) In order to be able to use a proposition effectively one has to > verify that it is meaningful in the first place. Furthermore, you have to > make sure that it is not dull witted (like proving a statement by inferring > it from a direct contradiction.) So a proposition has to have some kind of > interpretation that would make it meaningful and not completely insipid or > directly contradictory. Next it needs to be related to the subject matter > that it is supposed to be supporting or be integrated with. The concept of > "meaningful" does seem to coincide with "relevant". But how do we write a > program to create meaningful and relevant propositions when the very fabric > of knowledge is being generated. There is always the possibility that if > the knowledge that had been generated previously was meaningful then there > would be no way out of the program just generating a lot more meaningless > propositions. > > Finally the system has to be able to generate or find some propositions > that will help it achieve some goal. This aspect of meaningful and > relevant is another complexity. > Jim > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
