I like the meta-cognitive turn this is taking. :) This is getting interesting!
PM, could you provide some links to (or titles of) specific introductory works of Ryszard Michalski on dynamically interlaced hierarchies? On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Piaget's remark. > > I am going to conduct an experiment. I want to see if I can get you to > solve a problem for me. So I am going to keep track of our conversation by > keeping notes on particular issues related to this experiment. It is > unlikely that you would be able to solve a particular problem that is of > interest to me, so I am going to be looking for an unexpected solution to > some related problem that I will pick up somewhat serendipitously from our > conversation. The best way to get you to cooperate with me on this is to > get you talk about the thing you are interested in. However, the solutions > to the problems of your projects probably will not be the solutions to the > problems of my projects, so I have to find a way to get you talk about > something that is common to both of our projects. > So I have gotten you to describe some ways that your program can apply > imagination to problem solving. Your seem to acknowledge that integration > is a part of the process, but you haven't acknowledged that complexity is a > problem. So now, in order to get you to continue discussing this I have to > back off from talking about complexity and emphasize the problems of > 'verifying' and integrating internal projections. I will review your > message in response to my question of how your program will use > imagination, and I will copy that response into my notes. Now that I have > reviewed some of your previous messages I see that you mentioned Piaget's > comments on coordination before. Coordination seems to be very similar to > conceptual integration. I also found that you had told me that Michalski > had a fast inferencing method so that must be important to you for some > reason. > > So, to repeat myself for clarity. I am going to run a > subjective experiment for a couple of weeks. The goal is to get you to > solve a problem for me and I want to be able to note how I personally > integrate subject related serendipity into my knowledge structures > concerning the subject. It is unlikely that you would be able to solve a > problem that I specified in advance so I am going to look for an unexpected > serendipitous solution to some problem that I haven't yet > completely identified. In order to get you to participate in this > experiment I need to encourage you to talk about your project using terms > that are relevant to both of us. Since I will be keeping notes I have > started by reviewing and collecting some of the comments you made in this > thread. I can then use this knowledge to get you to continue talking about > things that interest you. I noted that you have not acknowledged that > complexity is a problem so I will back off that particular problem and try > to shift to integration (coordination) issues that seem challenging for an > automated AGI program to use effectively. Now that I have explained this > 'experiment' to you I will stop talking about it and get back to the > subject. > > > On the list of mental coordination methods, internal simulation methods > and inferencing you did not specifically mention conditional branching so > there is a chance that you (or Piaget) left that off the list. I would say > that is a pretty important concept! On the other hand, running different > methods to use in a comparison with perceived events seems to imply a > conditional branching. > > > Anyway, the next question I have for you concerns 'verification' and > integration (coordination). Without strong verification, coordination is > essentially going to tie weak inferences together. If you accept that this > could be a problem then how would your program use the products of > coordination reliably? > > Jim Bromer > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> "The central idea is that knowledge proceeds neither solely from the >> experience of objects nor from >> >> an innate programming performed in the subject, but from successive >> constructions, the result of >> >> constant development of new structures.” ~ Jean Piaget**** >> >> >> So I think we knit together these insights, piecemeal, until they recur >> and strengthen, and become >> >> more predictable and forceful in our minds. Then they integrate and form >> a larger structure, and >> >> eventually they become a subsystem, integrating with other subsystems, >> until they finally integrate >> >> with the totality. >> >> >> Or at least that's how I interpreted it in "The Development of Thought" >> by J.Piaget. >> >> >> Cheers. >> >> >> ~PM. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:12:06 -0500 >> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> Well, I would look at Ryszard Michalski's work on dynamically interlaced >> hierarchies if it was convenient for me to do so. Nothing about this is >> mentioned on his home page and the first reference I looked at did not seem >> like a breakthrough paper. >> >> I want to finish something that I was thinking about. >> >> We (or a machine) would be able to build strong knowledge if the >> knowledge that was gained could be used to reliably predict, explain or >> produce a specific outcome. But often, the outcomes are weak or unreliable >> indicators of much of value. So instead we are left with a lot of weakly >> related situation-action-reaction insights that are inexplicably >> conditional and variant. >> >> This is a lot like serendipitous learning. If I try to learn something, >> I probably won't be able to figure out what I wanted to figure out (unless >> it is something that other people had already figured out and it was within >> my field of knowledge). But I would probably learn something new >> serendipitously. Now can we patch a lot of weak unexpected insights >> together? Yes, but in order to build something reliable out of a lot of >> weak structural pieces they have to be integrated pretty thoroughly. The >> integration does not have to perfect but the matrix of these things have to >> be strong enough to serve as a foundation for greater insights. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >> >> I would agree that you also need mult-strategy reasoning in addition >> to correlations. >> >> Look at Rysard Michalski's work on dynamically interlaced hierarchies. >> He has a fast and efficient mechanism for inference. He inspired me. >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~PM. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:36:20 -0500 >> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> I discovered something about logic that I never knew before. It is >> something that I have thought about for 40 years, but I never stopped to >> explore the application. Now, shouldn't this new insight give me greater >> understanding? Well, yeah, but it doesn't work that way. I have a new >> insight but I haven't got any use for it. So now I have to try to find >> some practical use for it. Well even though I don't have any use for it, I >> might pick up some street creds by telling other people about it right? >> Well no, not really. It is really a turn-the-crank kind of thing and the >> fact that I thought about it for so long without ever once examining its >> application is kind of embarrassing. So now, before I can talk about it I >> have to search for some way to use the idea effectively. If I found some >> utility for it then I could pick up some credit for it, but until then it >> is just going to make my work with logic more complicated. >> >> The insight was a turn-the-crank kind of insight so it represented the >> application of a familiar idea onto another familiar idea in a way that was >> very familiar to me. The only thing I did different was to actually see >> how it worked in a few examples. When I did that I realized that the >> effects were not exactly what I expected. However, logic is an artificial >> field which is well formed so that other logic-based ideas, like something >> from mathematics, can sometimes be easily integrated into it. In real >> world examples of ideative projection, the analysis of turn-the-crank >> imagination cannot easily be achieved just by using other (integrated or >> related) methods of internal ideative projection. And as I just explained, >> simple correlation methods are not an easy substitute for insightful >> methods. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> | >> 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/303/10561250-470149cf> | >> 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/303/19999924-5cfde295> | >> 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/303/10561250-470149cf> | >> 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/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
