I think just skimmed through the outline html -- it seems like a good start. I wouldn't start writing any code for quite a while yet. It seems to me that you need to fight with those issues first.
On 4/20/13, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Part 1 >> >> I feel that complexity is a major problem facing contemporary AGI. It is >> true, that for most human reasoning we do not need to figure out >> complicated problems precisely in order to take the first steps toward >> competency but so far AGI has not been able to get very far beyond the >> narrow-AI barrier. >> >> I am going to start with a text-based AGI program. I agree that more >> kinds of IO modalities would make an effective AGI program better. >> However, >> I am not aware of any evidence that sensory-based AGI or multi-modal >> sensory based AGI or robotic based AGI has been able to achieve something >> greater than other efforts. The core of AGI is not going to be found in >> the >> peripherals. And it is clear that starting with complicated IO >> accessories would make AGI programming more difficult. It seems obvious >> that IO is necessary for AI/AGI and this abstraction is a probably more >> appropriate basis for the requirements of AGI. >> >> My AGI program is going to be based on discreet references. I feel that >> the argument that only neural networks are able to learn or are able to >> incorporate different kinds of data objects into an associative field is >> not accurate. I do, however, feel that more attention needs to be paid to >> concept integration. And I think that many of us recognize that a good >> AGI model is going to create an internal reference model that is a kind >> of >> network. The discreet reference model more easily allows the program to >> retain the components of an agglomeration in a way in which the >> traditional >> neural network does not. This means that it is more likely that the >> parts of an associative agglomeration can be detected. On the other >> hand, since the program will develop its own internal data objects, these >> might be formed in such a way so that the original parts might be >> difficult >> to detect. With a more conscious effort to better understand concept >> integration I think that the discreet conceptual network model will prove >> itself fairly easily. >> > > Yep, so can do concept integration, by representing concepts with > sentences. > It works, it's simple, it can show association, it maintains original > parts. > > > >> I am going to use weighted reasoning and probability but only to a >> limited >> extent. >> > > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Part 2 > >> I believe that it takes a great deal of knowledge to 'understand' one >> thing. A statement has to be integrated into a greater collection of >> knowledge in order for the relations of understanding to be formed. >> > Just like how a sentence can be integrated into a story. > > >> And the knowledge of a single statement has to be integrated into a >> greater field of knowledge concerning the central features of the subject >> for the intelligent entity to truly understand the statement. While >> conceptual integration, by some name, has always been a primary subject >> in >> AI/AGI, I think it was relegated to a subservient position by those who >> originally stressed the formal methods of logic, linguistics, psychology, >> numerics, probability, and neural networks. Thinking that the details of >> how ideas work in actual thinking was either part of some >> predawn-of-science-philosophy or the turn-of-the-crank production of the >> successful application of formal methods, a focus on the details of how >> ideas work in actual problems was seen as naïve. >> > > Many people understand things through story. Indeed it is the way in which > our brains are designed to operate and interpret new information, since the > cave paintings at the very least. > > It's also the most effective way of transmitting information from one > person to another, as it often bypasses much of the conscious criticality, > and simply subsumes into the subconscious background. > > Even computers understand things through story, even thought the typical > programming language may make this hard to see, however the setting or > variables are declared intially, the rising action is the preperation of > the variables for interaction, then the conflict or change is the actual > transmutation of the variables, and resolution is the returning of the > result. > > >> This problem, where the smartest thinkers would spend lives pursuing the >> abstract problems without wasting their time carefully examining many >> real >> world cases occurs often in science. It is amplified by ignorance. If >> no one knows how to create a practical application then the experts in >> the >> field may become overly pre-occupied with the proposed formal methods >> that >> had been presented to them. Formal methods are important - but they are >> each only one kind of thing. It takes a great deal of knowledge about >> many different things to 'understand' one kind of thing. A reasonable >> rule of thumb is that formal methods have to be tried and shaped based on >> exhaustive applications of the methods to real world problems. >> > In order to integrate new knowledge the new idea that is being introduced >> usually has to be verified using many steps to show that it holds. >> > > well there is always parsing, and compiling, if it works it works. Though > factual information about the world could be statistically > cross-referenced. > > >> Since there is no absolute insight into truth for this kind of thing, >> knowledge has to be integrated in a more thorough trial and error manner. >> > > truth is personal experience, so each perspective has it's own truth. > knowledge is past-experience, there is true knowledge, and real knowledge. > real is the set of beliefs that are in common amongst a group. > exist is anything that can be imagined/compiled. > > >> The program has to create new theories about statements or reactions it >> is considering. This would extend to interpretations of observations for >> systems where other kinds of sensory systems were used. A single >> experiment does not 'prove' a new theory in science. A large number of >> experiments are required and most of those experiments have to >> demonstrate >> that the application of the theory can lead to better understanding of >> other related effects. >> > > you know it all depends, are we making little scientists, or AGI's? > Is there purpose to "prove" stuff, or rather simply to "do" stuff. > Sure they could use some scientific method, and statistical verification, > however it's more important to actually get stuff done i.e. result of > experiment, than have it published in a peer-reviewed journal, or get a > bunch of peers to re-do the experiments. > The experiment and results could be shared with other AGI's and people over > the internet, likely in the form of a story, if others come across > similar issues they may wish to try it themselves, and comment if it works > out for them. > > >> It takes a knowledge of a great many things to verify a statement about >> one thing. In order for the knowledge represented by a statement to be >> verified and comprehended it has to be related to, and integrated with, a >> great many other statements concerning the primary subject matter. It is >> necessary to see how the primary subject matter may be used in many >> different kinds of thoughts to be able to understand it. >> > > I disagree, as you don't have to know all the ways to add stuff, to > simply add some numbers together. > You can easily learn new things later on, like how to perform addition > amongst new types of things, like for instance arrays, or ingredients. > Gotta start somewhere, and arithmetic addition is a sufficient place to do > so. > > > > > >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | >> 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/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
