Jim, To reiterate for the Nth time, software developers communicate with one anotherand themselves via requirements and specifications, not synopses. Having target state diagrams (UML or other) with static and dynamic views will help people understand what is going on in your head. Of course you understand it. But if you want assistance, or you are interested any at all in having other people understand it. You should consider creating requirements, specifications, and diagrams. Text summaries are only for philosphers, not software developers. Just my opinion.
~PM From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:13:57 -0400 > From: [email protected] > I agree with Piaget.... this is more like a brain dump, not a bad > brain dump, I mean, it's fine, still a brain dump, hard to get to the > meat of it. > Mike, I will be glad to discuss this with you, if you are interested, after I finish the summary. I assume that you mean that you cannot see how these ideas can be turned into an actual program. I am planning to try to start to turn these ideas into an actual program next month. When people start questioning my theories in this way I always wonder what it is that they cannot understand. For example, you don't think that a text based program could derive generalizations from specializations? (My guess is that you had forgotten that I wrote something along those lines or that my choice of a less perfect word like "specification" confused you.) Well the problem of discovering conceptual specializations is a little more difficult than just finding any specializations for a word. (It should be easy to use text to detect syntactic specializations of a word right?) I believe that crude conceptual relations can be found through an ongoing exchange of text where a human being is trying to act as a teacher. If this fundamental idea is right then it should be fairly easy to get the program to examine statements that can (be said to) represent conceptual specializations. From there it should be possible to encourage the program to derive conceptual generalizations form groups of related conceptual specializations. This is something that should be fairly easy to test as long as I am not dragged down by some deluded standard of human-like "perfection". This is not only a reasonable example it is a good example of normal technological development. The only real question is whether I will follow through. Jim Bromer AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
