A concept is a constant (i.e., a symbol, a placeholder) which stands in relation to other concepts (i.e., constants). That's my view. Cheers! ~PM.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Variables vs concepts ; analog vs mapping computers Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:57:18 +0100 PM: "Concepts are just constants" What do you mean? It's hard to think of anything constant in any concept. From: Piaget Modeler Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:48 AM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Variables vs concepts ; analog vs mapping computers At the end of the day, Concepts are just constants. And I agree that we need to do analogy (i.e., constant mapping and substitution) primarily. Cheers! ~PM From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [agi] Variables vs concepts ; analog vs mapping computers Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:26:25 +0100 John: The symbology is digital, unless somehow you make the symbols analog for some benefit. There are two kinds of symbols - the symbols of logic and maths and computer algorithms, which are only *variables* with precise, specific referents. If p then q - a + b = c, a geometric square or triangle - these are all variables. But the symbols of language are *concepts*. Concepts are the "building blobs" of AGI thought - the magic ingredients which enable humans and animals to create flexible courses of action in the real world. Concepts like "*I* *must* *go* *get* *some* *food* " Concepts like these - all the concepts of language - have vague and general rather than precise & specific referents. There is no specific "I" or form of "I" - no specific form of "go" or "food" or "some." But horrific as that is to the logicomathematical mind, it is great for real world action. It is concepts like these that all AI, in its present incarnation, is completely incapable of handling. And it is concepts, not bleeding algebraic/logical variables, Steve, that AGI must aim for, and that represent one of the obvious great challenges. Such concepts enable flexible, creative courses of action in the real world. They are demonstrably beyond the grasp of any algorithm or logic or maths. There is no algorithm for "go" or "food." Nor are there any equivalents in logic or maths. It is because an AGI starts with just a vague, general direction like "go" that it can engage in more or less any form of movement that may be required on its real world journey to the fridge - can hop, jump, leap, crawl or walk over furniture and any of the other *completely unpredictable* obstacles that may lie n its path to the fridge. "Go" embraces jumping, leaping, crawling, walking, running, being carried etc etc - forms of movement ad infinitum. It's a concept, not a variable. Logical and mathematical variables and differential equations are absolutely useless, Steve, if you are undertaking any real world journey anywhere, including a journey through a Woz kitchen to make coffee (or eat from a fridge). However I suspect - and correct me here - concepts are best understood as extremely fluid outline "MAPS" rather than "analogs" of objects and object actions. My impression is that analog has a fairly precise meaning in computation, which has nothing to do with fluid outline maps. If so, that is what we ideally need - not an analog computer/robot, but a ***mapping computer** that can fluidly, loosely map the world and map its body onto the world - a *retinal* computer. (The retina if you think about it does indeed literally fluidly and distortedly map the objects of the world - distortions which have to be corrected by the brain). AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
