Thanks for the smiley faces Boris... I disagree that you have to multiply all the vectors in a pattern by a relative distance to a target coordinate in order to combine imagined complex ideas and related observations. Our theories are very different. (On the other hand I am interested in conjectures about conceptual vectors and stuff like that.)
I am interested in a continuation of the explanation of your theories and I hope to get back to it soon. Jim Bromer On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > Jim, > > >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. > > Right, but that's the simplest assumption, you must make it unless you > know otherwise. And you only know otherwise if you've discovered more > "elemental" (stable) source on some higher level of search & > generalization. That would generate a focusing / motor feedback, always > derived from prior feedforward. As I keep saying, complexity must be > incremental :). > > > 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. > > This is interactive pattern projection, but you have to discover those > patterns first. Technically, you simply multiply all the vectors in a > pattern by a relative distance to a target coordinate. And then you compare > multiple patterns projected to the same coordinate, & multiply the > difference by relative strength of each pattern. That gives you a combined > prediction, or probability distribution if the patterns are mutually > exclusive :). > > > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 7:44 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Uncertainty, causality, entropy, self-organization, > and Schroedinger's cat. > > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18407320-d9907b69> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
