PM: Jim, your prior e-mail reads like you are either a chatbot or are attempting NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) or DHE. Just ask, my answer may be yes or no. My own reason for assisting is that I'd like you to understand my approach. -----------------------------------------------
I will try the experiment on Aaron. Jim Bromer On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > > Jim, your prior e-mail reads like you are either a chatbot or are > attempting NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) or DHE. > > Just ask, my answer may be yes or no. My own reason for assisting is that > I'd like you to understand my approach. > > Differentiation IS conditional branching. Observation is receiving > sensory stimuli. Coordination means making inferences. > Integration is combining different concepts via their attributes akin to > crossover or memetic recombination. > > Please define verification. It may be what I call correlation. > > Cheers! > > Imagine, NLP via e-mail. Whooda thunk it? > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:54:16 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > 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/303/19999924-5cfde295> | > 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 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
