Generalities can be clearly defined. The word is sometimes used to refer to some kind of vagueness or lack of specificity and I sometimes want to use generalizations without knowing how all the elements are specified.. However, I believe that the idea of conceptual relativism is extremely important and so I would say that any specification has the potential to be taken as a generalization and any generality has the potential to be taken as a specific. However, I am not bound to the classical systems of hierarchical generalization as you seem to be. For instance I would say that an element might only be partially included in the generalization (I think that is a fundamental basis of reality) and I know that a lot of guys in this group would insist that a specific might be probabilistically related to a generalization or it might have some other weighted value to represent how it belongs to a generalization.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > If a goal is “clearly definable”, it’s specific. > What we want for AGI is a conceptual system that functions like or mirrors > language - no concept in language is “clearly definable” – hence > philosophers can go on for ever about the definition of any concept. > We want a robot that can “GO TO THE KITCHEN” – those are general, not > clearly definable, specific concepts/goals – and that is how an AGI like > you can use them to GO via any mode of travel to any kind of KITCHEN. > “Clearly definable” and “specific” are dirty words for AGI. > ------------------------------------------- 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
