The use of overlapping transcendent boundaries or viewpoints is way to describe the local relations between ideas that I think we use in when we are thinking. The complexity is that it is a way of ignoring the complexity of actually fitting one group of ideas into the greater collection of ideas. Instead, the transcendent or momentary connection which led to a particular way of looking to a problem will dissipate as we consider the idea from that vantage. We may have a sense of the main paths that led to that vantage but we forget the complexity of possible routes that those paths can lead to even in cases where they can lead to strongly related nodes of knowledge. So we can simplify a problem in the near term but we leave many difficult problems until we start to examine the problem from another vantage.
It was just my way of understanding how we use logic (in tight local sets) even when that logic may be related to other sets of logic. If we want to make the initial logical analysis a better model we start looking at the problem from related sets of logical propositions and once we get that worked out then we will start looking to see how the two groups might be related in other ways by looking for other propositions that may relate the parts in a more sophisticated model. Jim On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > Getting back to "overlapping transcendent boundaries" or "viewpoints". > Jim, what do you see as the complexity of using viewpoints for inference > and reasoning? > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:16:19 -0600 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Internal Representation > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > This sounds like a flexible, multiple-inheritance class hierarchy to me. > Or maybe a map (over conceptual space), with the transitive "part of" > relation in Ryszard Michalski's papers that PM already linked us to. Or > any other combined hierarchical/spatial structure. I think the key novel > observation you're pointing to is that neighboring regions in conceptual > space can be grouped *dynamically *to define a larger region that makes > sense for the current reasoning context. > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > ------------------------------------------- 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
