Working memory, anyone? Maybe the fact that working memory is limited to about 7 items at a time isn't a weakness in the design of the brain. Maybe it's a feature with the purpose of limiting complexity.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I did not express that very clearly. I feel that when we think about > something -it is as if- we tend to put boundaries around the ideas that we > are using at that moment. But those boundaries are not solid and they are > not static. When we realize that some idea-thing has repercussions outside > of those boundaries we can include the additional insight into our thinking > by either implicitly changing the boundaries or by associating the central > ideas with a note about how outside objects of thought may impact or > interact with the central ideas. I originally derived this idea by > examining how we use logic and how logic might be used if we were > expressing our ideas about things (idea things) logically. I realized that > we always think about things as if they could be examined ex-situ so to > speak but when we need to examine additional ideas that can have an effect > or be related to the central ideas we can change the parameters of our > consideration without problem or formal declaration. > > Jim Bromer > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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> > <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
