> On the other hand I am interested in conjectures about conceptual vectors and > stuff like that
You can't formalize "conceptual" vectors, except in terms of "conceptual" coordinates . Jim Bromer 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 Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:44 PM To: AGI 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 | 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
<<Emoticon1.gif>>
