I appreciate the link to the definition of consilience. But my definition of the combination of observation objectives which are weakly correlated with some more inscrutable event goes slightly further (into the philosophy/conjectured processes of mind) than the idea of consilence. I was talking about a more fundamental form of some mental activity that has some strong similarities to consilence. I derived this idea from a number of different approaches.
Not everyone agrees on the relevance of this kind of thing to AGI. The basic method of devising recognizable stand-ins that could be correlated with a more inscrutable event (or references of meaning) is through the use of the recognition of ideas that we are more familiar with. So a person who understands the basis of an observation (or a communication) might be able to infer something that he did not fully understand by relying on the context of the more familiar situations. The best known formal case of this is situation where the kind of context of a well known generalization can convey the meaning of a particular specification because the range of the specification is so likely narrowed by the context. In the everyday examples of determining how we infer the nature of an event we usually rely on the context of a situation where we recognize many objects and sub situations. For example, I walk into the office and two women who like me are paying more attention to me than usual. One of them is married and the other is usually somewhat non-chalant toward me. There behavior is a little unusual. Why are they acting like this? Consilence, just like the observation of events that we take as being familiar, is based on the combinations of numerous collections of nearly inscrutable events that are inferred by familiar interpretations of observable objectives or "instruments" (in the sense of philosophical jargon) of perception. I believe that the ability to interpret some more elemental sensory impressions is based on projections of imaginative interpretations. But the problem in AGI is how do we recognize which interpretation should be applied to the context of the "buzzing booming confusion" of elemental sensory events in order to turn them into common place observation events. But the paths leading from representative observation event to recognized (or familiar) complexities of nearly inscrutable events onto unfamiliar complexities of other nearly inscrutable events must be complicated and prone to errors. How can this lead to a reliable theory. We have to be able to explain the mundane before we can answer the more elusive questions. We have to find simple but effective method to explain how these commonplace recognition events can take place in AGI. This is an elusive problem because of the range of the possibilities. So, in order to explain how this can take place in a simple time frame I have to guess that it is done through a narrowing of the possibilities. But since this kind of multiple step system is so prone to error there must be some channels for making corrections based on the accumulation and interpretation of data that can be found during recognition stages of thought. Jim Bromer On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A strong correlation between a relatively inscrutable event and a >> reliably observable event is very useful because the observable event can >> be used as an observation objective that can stand for the inscrutable >> event. However, it is an unlikely pairing. It is more likely that we will >> find that an observable event is only weakly correlated with the more >> inscrutable event. However, by using multiple 'vantages' you might find >> many different observable events which can be used as observation >> objectives to indicate that a more inscrutable event has occurred. By >> finding different observation objectives which can combine to enhance the >> weak correlations of the individual observation objectives, an AGI program >> would be more likely to be capable of inferring that the inscrutable event >> has occurred. We also need to be able to find observation objectives that >> can be combined to help distinguish between more elusive events which might >> both be associated with some particular group of observation events. >> >> Jim Bromer >> *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> > <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
