Well, just getting back to the narrower central issue being discussed, there is a problem where people use high level analyses to come up with a conclusion but who haven't actually done sufficient application of their theory to back up their conclusions can become a quite reckless about their assertions. This kind of thing can work when the partitioning of the field is well defined and simple but it is a notoriously bad method to rely on when the field is not absolutely partitioned and definable. This is related to the problem of the lack of adequate inductive data which may represent a kind of feedback but which usually is accompanied by some novel insights about the referent. Jim Bromer
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > For example, there is the theory of perception where sensory inputs are > believed to be 'defined' (or something) or tagged with higher level > analysis shows that there are solid foundations of non-hierarchal reasoning > > And where do you think this tagging or defining came from in the first > place? Feedback, by any chance? From previously generalized sensory data? > Or maybe you think there was some direct NLP communication from god, at the > dawn of the history? > > This goes back to my musings about radically impaired "inductive phase" in > the dressed-up ape. Countless people with great raw intelligence & > top-down focus seem to have trouble wrapping their minds around functional > definition of intelligence, & its importance for developing a GI algorithm. > I thought long & hard, & came up with a very unlikely combination of three > critical conditions: > > - This level of generalization likely requires very *sparse cortical > architecture*<http://cognitive-focus.blogspot.com/2012/01/cognitive-focus-generalist-vs.html>, > not terribly practical otherwise. > - Given scarcity of related material, one must be emotionally detached & > asocial enough to start a new field. Being detached & asocial is > historically life-threatening, never mind working with nothing tangible in > sight. > - One should start young, while his brain is still plastic / unmyelinated, > because meta generalization is extremely (if subconsciously) data-intense. > Of course, working alone is the hardest when one is young. > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2013 12:06 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Steve's placement/payload theory of language > > No. The idea that they a referent is a kind of search and compare > process does seem obvious. However, the conclusion that sensory inputs is > at the bottom of a hierarchy (of search and compare or something) is not a > valid conclusion. For example, there is the theory of perception where > sensory inputs are believed to be 'defined' (or something) or tagged with > higher level analysis shows that there are solid foundations of > non-hierarchal reasoning. Furthermore, the idea that a system of hierarchy > is both complete and sound is contra-indicated by the evidence of the > dismal results of AGI so far (which is also foundational to your conclusion > that there is a snowball's chance in hell (scih) of the need for sensory > inputs in order for a necessarily hierarchal search and compare process). > If a single hierarchy was sound and complete then traditional logic would > be sound and complete. I think I was saying that an effort to create a > linguistic theory which was able to include a method that determined some > of the referents of a statement that was being analyzed was a search and > compare method which meant it would be complex. Finally, a keyboard (for > example) is a sensory device. It would not make any sense to talk about an > AI program that was not capable of reacting to input in some way (except > maybe as pretty far flung theoretical mathematical thing where the "input" > could be contrived to be derived from the initial input.) > Jim Bromer > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> >> > It is quite possible that the progressive discovery of referents is >> just a search and compare operation... >> >> Isn't this tautological? Isn't it also tautological that, to be >> selective, search ( comparison must be hierarchical? And that at the bottom >> of this hierarchy of complexity are sensory inputs? And that if your >> algorithm can't start from these inputs, then it has a snowball's chance in >> the hell at starting anywhere higher? >> Hello? >> ** >> ** >> *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:11 AM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Steve's placement/payload theory of language >> >> So anyway, I think that linguistics has to be involved with the >> progressive determination of referents and how these referents can be used >> to define the meaning of the other parts of an expression. This is so open >> that formal linguistics may not be able to define this well but it can be >> defined in general ways or for general common meanings. Because we can >> provide encodings that, in turn, means that we can use terms in a >> specialized way. (Like when I said that I use the term referent to refer >> to a real world object or a real world event, or to a mental object or >> mental event). People in these groups sometimes become annoyed because we >> can't figure out what they are talking about even though they have talked >> about their ideas numerous times. Part of the problem is that we can't >> recall all the specialized definitions that individuals use. I believe >> that this problem is aggravated because specialization is an important part >> of communicating and even the best of writers rely on this even when they >> are using conventional terminology. >> >> So I think that the major obstacle confronting AGI linguistics right now >> is the discovery of referents. Yes this could sometimes be alleviated with >> multi-modal sensors, but there is no evidence that multi-modal sensory >> methods that would allow an object to be seen and heard or sensed in other >> ways would resolve this problem of deducing what is being referred to. It >> is quite possible that the progressive discovery of referents is just a >> search and compare operation which seems to be major slowdown in computer >> science today. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- 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
