Sergio, That is a good point, but you can't find the answer in a pure abstraction. A precise measure of uncertainty is a confused idea. Yes if we could remove all uncertainty we could find the answers but no one can remove all uncertainty. You cannot make a precise measure of uncertainty and you cannot remove all uncertainty. It seems pretty clear to me. Jim Bromer
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]>wrote: > JIM BROMER> The problem is that the complexity of finding every kind of > possible pattern in some data is just too great. There are too many > possibilities.**** > > SERGIO> Then don't. People started trying to do that around 1900, and > always reached the same conclusion. That's because it is uncomputable. You > have to minimize the functional and remove the entropy, then you'll have > recognition. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > JIM BROMER> That is one example of how the contemporary AGI problem is a > complexity issue.**** > > SERGIO> Yes, I agree 100%. Complexity is the accumulation of entropy, > where entropy=uncertainty. **** > > ** ** > > Sergio**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:56 PM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Pattern: definition & incremental syntax.. P.S.**** > > ** ** > > It is pretty easy to come up with a way for programs to recognize certain > kinds of patterns in certain kinds of situations. A computer program could > be written to abstract or find abstractions from a number of data storage > types. Technically it should be feasible to write a program that could > detect a given pattern, if it had enough time, as long as the pattern was > not too obscure.**** > > **** > > The problem with a challenge like this is that it is not really the > problem. In AGI, not only does a computer program need to be able to > recognize patterns, but it needs to be able to find the important patterns > that would allow it to leverage the knowledge that it already had to > achieve stronger goals. It is very easy for a program to find some > abstractions out of a source of data, but it is impossible for a program to > find every possible abstraction (if the source of the data was large enough > - and it would not have to be that large). The problem is that the > complexity of finding every kind of possible pattern in some data is just > too great. There are too many possibilities.**** > > **** > > That is one example of how the contemporary AGI problem is a complexity > issue.**** > > **** > > Jim Bromer**** > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > “it's pretty easy to come up with ways to do it in a program.You can't see > how a pattern is a patterned concept because you don't understand classes, > subclasses, and instances.”**** > > **** > > Go ahead – give us a hierarchy of classes for “pattern”, & we’ll present > your program with a pattern and non-pattern or two for recognition. (I > think you’re totally lost here – we’re talking about what is basically > visual/sensory object recognition. You/your machine have to be able to > recognize a “pattern.” You seem to be talking about, basically, database > operations).**** > > **** > > **** <http://www.listbox.com> > > ** ** <http://www.listbox.com> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com>* > > **** <http://www.listbox.com> > > ** ** <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
