Jim,
Well, language is the proverbial tip of the iceberg, concepts live below
the level of language. Language just provides labels for easier access
to what may be the same or similar concept.
They live in the models, which can be represented as systems of
relations, evidence evaluation systems, and such.
What I'm asking is if you have an idea for the problem of modeling other
minds. If everyone had the same concept models, there would be little
point in talking to each other, and that is the purpose of language --
coordination (or influence) of action among people who may have
different ideas about the same label (that is, the name of a concept).
-- Dimitry
On 10/8/2012 7:08 AM, Jim Bromer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Dimitry Volfson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
"John believes Mary Loves John."
Ok, so as a surface structure relation, that's straightforward.
But the deep structure is: Why does John believe that Mary Love John?
Is it the way she talks to him, the way she touches him, the way she
laughs at his jokes, etc. What evidence does John think means that
Mary Loves John.
"John believes Mary Loves John" implies John has a model of what Love
looks like, and has seen some of that in Mary's relations to him. This
model and evidence is the deep structure. And the evidence that
produced the model is an even deeper structure.
Did he get that model by watching his parents' behavior toward each
other, or watching TV shows, or reading romance novels, or what his
friends told him, etc.? There is no right answer to what is "love" --
it's a vague concept that different people can disagree on without a
definitive answer. And many human concepts are like that (loyalty,
bravery, cowardice, morality, etc).
Dimitry,
You are coming up with common answers to a question about a human
experience but then you are claiming that because the reasons for the
affect are vague and people disagree with the answers and there is no
definitive answer then a network of conceptual structure won't work to
produce AGI or something. OK, there are no definitive answers. Why
would you think that is a problem? Do you believe that AGI has to be
based on universally held truths or something? That is a
historically regressive point of view and it never really was a
sensible foundation for a model for human-like intelligence.
I agree with you that intelligence is the ability to gather insights
about a concept. So your example is ok.
Your real criticism is based on the fact that while a structural
analysis in linguistics can find a particular simple transformation
for a statement, the reasons for the experience denoted by the
statement are multiple and must be drawn from many experiences
and from contemplation and from education. Let me
answer one criticism that was implicit in your remarks. While
the ability to learn from education is a mark of higher intelligence,
the argument that a computer program is not therefore able to learn
through some sort of education must be based on the assumption that
computers are not capable of intelligence. This is obviously not a
good reason to conclude that AGI is imposible or that the conceptual
network and conceptual structure which I mentioned is not strong
enough to produce intelligence.
The contemporary complication is due to the fact that certain basic
principles of AGI are elusive. That is, an automated program is able
to derive some valid insights about the world, but it is missing so
many foundational principles that even the simplest structures cannot
be maintained. Yes that might be due to a lack of a method to
discover basic truths, but it also might be due to an overly
parsimonius methodology which simply will not provide the program with
the ability to derive enough possibilties to build on. Perhaps
the basis for natural intelligence might be better likened to a beaver
dam than a metropolis.
The conceptual network and conceptual structure theories would provide
a mechanism to hold a variety of reasons and insights related to a
concept that is being considered, and these insights would tend to be
distributed. There is a problem with getting computers to explore
multiple possible relations that build on multiple possible relations
and I call that the complexity problem. However, this problem does
not prove that the conceptual network and conceptual structure, as I
am talking about it, is wrong.
Jim Bromer
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Dimitry Volfson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Jim,
For diagrams: Visio, or MindJet.
Apart from that, are you considering deep structure relations, as
opposed to surface structure (language).
For Example, from the YKY "Concept Composition Logic" paper:
"John believes Mary Loves John."
Ok, so as a surface structure relation, that's straightforward.
But the deep structure is: Why does John believe that Mary Love
John? Is it the way she talks to him, the way she touches him, the
way she laughs at his jokes, etc. What evidence does John think
means that Mary Loves John.
"John believes Mary Loves John" implies John has a model of what
Love looks like, and has seen some of that in Mary's relations to
him. This model and evidence is the deep structure. And the
evidence that produced the model is an even deeper structure.
Did he get that model by watching his parents' behavior toward
each other, or watching TV shows, or reading romance novels, or
what his friends told him, etc.? There is no right answer to what
is "love" -- it's a vague concept that different people can
disagree on without a definitive answer. And many human concepts
are like that (loyalty, bravery, cowardice, morality, etc).
On 10/7/2012 7:56 PM, Jim Bromer wrote:
I don't have a diagram and I would not know how to draw one. The
idea is that a great deal of information can be related to
different kinds of concepts that might be considered central to
some idea. I have figured out a way that I should be able to
experiment with the idea using concrete examples expressed with
simple language. This experiment will not be a true AGI program
but it should allow me to see if the structural conceptual
networks idea is feasible as a way to represent an AGI program.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Piaget Modeler
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Diagrams Jim,
Diagrams.
~PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 18:07:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [agi] Conceptual Structure?
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
I forgot about conceptual structure itself. Conceptual
structure is based on the idea that structure in language is
vital to understanding language, and that structure in ideas
must also be understood to understand the ideas. For
instance temporal structure is often important and so is
positional structure. But when you think about it these two
kinds of relationships are only concepts. While they seem to
have a wide application to many different kinds of things
they are still only concepts. This shows that concepts may
play different kinds of roles when used with other concepts.
This insight seems obvious to me but it also seems obviously
important. If you can find that certain concepts can take on
the role of an abstracting or generalizing agent then doesn't
this imply that other concepts might also take on roles that
go beyond their surface characteristics? For example, the
position of an object is what it is. To recognize that
position and relative position might be used to create highly
generalized principles that have advanced mankind's
understanding of matter and technology is to recognize that
a seemingly dull feature of a concept can be used as an agent
of insight. So then I am saying that by exploring the roles
and structures of concepts I expect to find other activating
principles of insight that may have eluded us so far.
Jim Bromer
*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 [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
*AGI* | Archives
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10215994-5ed4e9d1> |
Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription
[Powered by Listbox] <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
[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
____________________________________________________________
*Refinance for 1.750%/2.926% APR*
Loans under 729K usually qualify for US GOV backed refinance programs
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/5072733edf501733d589bst02duc>theeasyloansite.com
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/5072733edf501733d589bst02duc>
*AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10215994-5ed4e9d1> |
Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] <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
