I originally came up with the image of overlapping transcendent boundaries while thinking about how we use logic. When we are considering a group of related logical propositions we are putting boundaries around those propositions and imagining them as existing as a complete universe. But if were to learn or derived some new logical propositions, we do not need to combine them to use them. We can consider the new propositions as if they existed as a separate universe of their own. But if we realized that some of the propositions of one group might have an impact on the other we could transcend the original boundaries separating the groups. We could combine them into a larger group or we could take those propositions from the two groups that directly relate to each other and create a transcendent boundary around them to consider them as a universe or a domain to themselves. The boundaries do exist, there may be some overlap in them but we may take a number of means to transcend those boundaries to use them in consideration of other situations. This idea of transcendent boundaries can be extended to any systems of ideas.
The outline of the next steps is not important, it is more of a guiding simile. Jim Bromer On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > I agree, you're only done with the architecture at that point. > > You still need to implement and get results. > > Can you (1) reiterate what you meant so that it is comprehensible to the > rest of the world, > and then (2) outline the next steps? > > ~PM. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:37:31 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > No, produce something that actually works. Then you are done. Not simple. > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > You'd have to repeat that in Math, or Algorithms and Data Structures to > make it comprehensible (to me). > > There are too many concepts such as "boundaries with transcendent > overlaps" that are private to you alone. > > But I suppose you're understanding my method. List the requirements, > constraints, dependencies, and > assumptions. Then find a solution to address them all. Iterate until done. > Very simple. > > Cheers! > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:30:28 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > So the program needs to be able to form 'ideas' but then it needs to be > able to use them in different ways. For example you may know something and > use that knowledge in your thinking without necessarily acting on that > particular piece of knowledge. We can talk about an explosion without > actually exploding something. > Constraining the search space and using boundaries with transcendent > overlaps are ways which our programs might avoid combinatorial explosions. > And we can use branching indexes as a means to find more detailed > information. Then, if particular 'ideas' are more closely associated with > particular index branches (or with other 'ideas' that are associatively > distributed in a similar way) they might not come to mind unless there is > some other reason to be looking at that particular group of 'ideas'. If > 'ideas' should be associated with other groups of ideas (or at other points > on the index) then they can be cross associated. However, the index > associations should be categorized or sub indexed in some way so that the > system does not become overwhelmed by associating all 'ideas' at the root > or initial path into the index. > > ------------------------------------------- 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
