On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote:
> So links can act as nodes, basically, as in a generalized hypergraph? > That's also built into my system. The Link class is a subclass of the Node > class. Nothing particularly difficult or unpleasant there. > > A story can define a distinction between kinds in my system, but it would > do so implicitly, through context, rather than explicitly through a > formalized mechanism. > > While neither the links-as-nodes nor the story-as-concept is specifically > used or accounted for in my design, it is easily extensible in both of > these directions. What I'm looking for is a particular use case, a reason > for paying special attention to this sort of functionality, as opposed to > merely including the capability should it later be found to need that > special attention. > > > ----------------------------------------- What I am saying - to you - is that I think many guys who I have talked to seem to have the sense that the kinds of things that I am talking about are high level effects, just as you and Piaget Modeller (I can never remember his name) did. So then, their low level implementation would have the *potential* to represent these issues of conceptual relativism once their programs got to the point where they understood basic sentences. It is as if they are so focused on (what they consider to be the) low level implementation issues that they then imagine that once their programs are able to deal insightfully with simple expressions (or observations and interactions) that the rest will be easy. What I am saying is that you have to work these capabilities into your basic programming because these are the essence of intelligence. It is this genuinely rational-creative talent which is what drives intelligence. These skills are not (just) high level capabilities, they are the essence of what it is that we are are talking about when we talk about intelligence. So if you are going to create a program that can learn to use natural language then the program must be implement these skills from the start (even though it might take some time for the program to learn something that would demonstrate how these can be used effectively.) It is interesting that you are, like Mike, demanding a concrete example. My simply telling you that a program that is to be able to learn to work with a human language has to be able to develop skills to develop abstractions, generalizations and categorical definitions from stories (story-like conversation) isn't enough to convince you that these so called higher level capabilities should be implemented at a low level of implementation. Stories (and examples) occur at different levels of abstraction. These levels are relative, there is no such thing as a purely concrete example or a pure abstraction. So the truth is that I have already given you quite a few examples, it is just that they have been expressed as abstractions. Saying that your model would be potentially capable of representing the kinds of relations that I am talking about is somewhat superficial. You are saying that the superficial aspects of representation would be powerful enough to handle these kinds of effects as if you were not fully realizing that your programming has to be explicitly written to actually implement these kinds of effects. By implementing these ideas at a lower level of the design what happens? The program suddenly becomes quite unwieldy. That means that your program has to deal with all the problems of creative thinking from the start. Ok, but so what. That is exactly where you want to be. Jump in and get to work. Stop trying to focus on what you once conceived as the starting point for developing an AGI project and start working on the central currents of reasoning. You think that by starting with something that can be broken into simpler pieces that you can locate the ideal starting point but you haven't. You broke it up in the wrong way. The right way is to examine, not glimpse, but examine the central issue of rational creativity and take a look at the fact that it can be and should be implemented at a "low level". You cannot pick out the parts of low level implementation in such a way as to avoid the complications of genuine AGI. A dedicated AGI programmer is going to need to deal with them eventually. Jim Bromer On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote: > So links can act as nodes, basically, as in a generalized hypergraph? > That's also built into my system. The Link class is a subclass of the Node > class. Nothing particularly difficult or unpleasant there. > > A story can define a distinction between kinds in my system, but it would > do so implicitly, through context, rather than explicitly through a > formalized mechanism. > > While neither the links-as-nodes nor the story-as-concept is specifically > used or accounted for in my design, it is easily extensible in both of > these directions. What I'm looking for is a particular use case, a reason > for paying special attention to this sort of functionality, as opposed to > merely including the capability should it later be found to need that > special attention. > > > > > -- Sent from my Palm Pre > > ------------------------------ > On Oct 22, 2012 8:04 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > A relatively concrete categorical definition of a concept might be a very > short "story" denoting the distinction between two or more cases of a kind > of thing. Although the distinction might be made briefer, that does not > mean that it would be made better by such a device. > Jim Bromer > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A concept may be defined by a word, a group of words, a sentence or a >> group of sentences (or even a fragment of a word). A category that such a >> concept might be said to belong to is also a concept. So the only >> distinction between a link (or an edge) and a node of a semantic network is >> relative to some purpose of relation or categorization (or description). >> >> Mike refuses to try to understand what I am saying because he would have >> to give up his sense of a superior point of view in order to understand >> it. Yes you have a more enlightened view point when it comes to trying to >> understand ideas that other people are trying to explain. But you resist >> 'understanding' what I am saying because it does not easily fall into an >> orderly point system that seems like it is immediately programmable. >> >> So you understand the words that I am using but I think you are simply >> refusing to understand the implications of those words because it is more >> unwieldy then your current beliefs. >> Jim Brom >> >>> >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > <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
