Sergio, I will give you an example of a dedicated effort to communicate an idea from my own experience. I have tried over and over to talk about relativism in human thought. Very few people even made the effort to try to understand what I was saying. One effect of conceptual relativism is that when you use concepts to consider other concepts the concepts you use will affect the concept under consideration. This is simple to understand and yet I don't remember anyone actually talking about it to me. It is one of those things that people either ignore or don't understand or don't care about.
So I can't say that this is an idea that everyone in AGI has been waiting for. Now if I could use it to create an actual AGI program then some people would become curious. However, the problem is that this idea introduces the potential for so much complexity that it is not an effective and simplifying idea. So I keep repeating it every once in a while waiting for someone who might have something useful to say about it. But I don't actually expect anyone to actually have something useful to say about the matter. One thing that Boris and I seem to agree with is that you have to be able to refer to the source of a concept (or information) in order to resolve some issues related to data derived from it. (Since we need to use generalizations then you would have to refer to the simplest generalization of the source, or an elemental source event that characterized the class of the generalization of the concept in order to resolve some issues that concern the derived concept or information. Boris talks about scalability.) Where Boris and I disagree is that I feel that because of relativity the input source of an idea may not be the most elemental source of the idea that needs to be considered. One simple example is that we can use our imagination and study of the subject of the concept in order to extend our ideas about the subject beyond those ideas which came directly from observations of it. So our most elemental ideas about matter, for example, do not come only from our macro observations of it but from the application of our imaginations to understand various theories about the particles and waves of it. I know that some people must be able to understand what I just said, because it was all pretty basic stuff. But since the AGI guys cannot convert those simple ideas into a computer program they do not seem too interested. So I have a good idea but it is not a great idea that explains how someone might actually create an AGI program. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
