On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Logan said: > > By doing some programming, you'll gain some insights into how computers > think. > Also you'll learn about how to think more logically and rationally. > > I hope so. > > Logan said: > generally you need to write and interpreter or compiler, to "understand" > i.e. compile or interpret a statement. > > You need to write something that will "understand" or interpret statements > but the question is how do you do that so that it actually works. > It's been done before Many Many Many times, Java, C, C#, Scheme, Haskell, Perl, PHP, HTML all of them have either interpreters or compilers that work. > My theory is that it takes many statements to "understand" one statement. > Yes that is the case, in the sense it takes more than one statement to write a compiler or interpreter. > Some of the statements may refer to incidental associated information > and some may refer to information about usage and so on. Furthermore, you > need contextual information about an ongoing conversation and what some of > the consequences of interpreting a sentence in a certain way may be. It is > not a straightforward problem. Anaphora-like relations, for example, can > change the meaning of an apparent object of an indefinite article which > means that a sub-sentence which is exactly the same can refer to a > broad range of a-kind-of-object in one sentence and to a very particular > object in another. It takes many statements, some of which will refer to > how linguistic objects are typically used, to "understand" a single simple > statement. > If you understood what an interpreter or compiler was, and how it works, you'd have a much clearer idea. > > I had said: > So this means that it can be very difficult to determine the meaning of a > combination of concepts if the program does not explicitly contain a > reference to that particular combination. > > Logan replied: > That is completely false, it's like saying computer-programming languages > contain references to every particular combination, when in fact you only > need to understand the sub-components. Similar to how you don't need to > know every story in conceivability to listen to a new story and derive > meaning from it. In fact the very process of acquiring new information > falsifies your hypothesis. > > The mysteries of the capabilities of human intelligence do not > automatically falsify hypotheses about the problems of artificial > intelligence on a computer. > Er, no I'm talking about computer programing compilers and interpreters. I'm simply also mentioning that humans have a similar capacity. > That is a serious logical error in reasoning. You cannot transcend the > boundaries of two very distinct reference subjects without recognizing that > the argument from one does not necessarily hold for the other. (In some > discussions that would be ok but there is no reason to believe that my > reference to "the program" referred to human abilities.) > > > I agree that the ability to ask questions and search through external > sources of information would allow the program to redirect its search and > help it to avoid search complexities in some cases. > > The simplistic use of generalizations in the 60's did not work to produce > AI, and different kinds of weighted reasoning in the 70s and the 80s did > not work either. Weighted Reasoning can refer to a number of different > paradigms. Putting weights on statements is one kind (John Anderson), > Neural Networks is another and Bayesian Networks is another. > > The simulation I plan to start with will use a constrained language of > 100-200 words. I will start by explicitly directing the program > (algorithmically) to produce the kinds of data structures that I have in > mind for the program, then I will see if I can write the subprograms which > could use those kinds of data relations to determine what an input sentence > is referring to. > Seriously, do some research on what a compiler or interpreter is, that way you wont be reinventing the wheel as it seems to be what you're doing. > I will start with something simple and if I make some progress then I will > try something a little more difficult. I plan to learn a great deal from > this process and I expect that my theories about AGI will become stronger. > > Jim Bromer > Of course if you know more, they'll be stronger. > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:13:11 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Summary of My Current Theory For an AGI Program. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Logan,**** > Thanks for your comments. > > I agree of course that concepts and concept integration may be represented > by words and sentences. I was trying to say that many of the > complications that will arise using word-concepts will arise using some > other kinds of referential concepts. One of the reasons that I am > convinced that text-only AGI is a good way to go is because there is such a > potential for expressiveness and the representation of different kinds of > ideas. It is often difficult to express complicated ideas using words > because they are not substitutes for the implementations of the things that > we are talking about. > > > We can implement anything using words, from programs through bridges to > relationships. > > However, that does not mean that they cannot be used as representations of > ideas. I understand what I am talking about even though other people do > not.**** > ** > > > That simply indicates a need to enhance your communication skills. > > ** > I believe that when we acquire a learned habit the parts of the habit may > not be directly understandable but can only be approached indirectly by > referring to something else. For instance a learned action may be > created by a string of action potentials (for a lack of a better name) and > it may be that the only way to detect the parts of the string is by noting > the whole, more complicated action. > > > Ya, many voice to text parsers work like that, however they aren't very > good at understanding new phrases, or different ways of saying things. > Both are necessary, likely with some supervised learning i.e. "what did you > mean by that?" giving a target, for optimal results. > > > Or we may infer the action by some other action or other event that is > roughly correlated with the inferred action. But essentially, when we > are capable of reflection (meta-cognition) we are able to ‘understand’ a > concept potential if we know something more about how to use and integrate > the concept. So by having some kind of understanding of a concept > potential we can consciously try to use it in different ways based on some > kind of reasoning. Now, if are not explicitly aware of the concept > potential there may be a chance that we can infer something about it > indirectly just as we might infer something about an action potential.**** > ** ** > I believe that the theory that it takes many statements to understand one > simple statement has a great deal of value. > > > generally you need to write and interpreter or compiler, to "understand" > i.e. compile or interpret a statement. > > Concepts are relativistic. That means that when a simple concept is used > in association with other concepts the meaning of the concept can vary. > Concepts > are contextual. But there are more problems. Concepts are > interdependent. There is not (necessarily) an independent concept and a > dependent concept in a conceptual function the way there are in a > mathematical function. > > > Actually there are a whole host of such axiomatic concepts. If there > weren't we'd just be wishy washy not really saying anything all the time. > > > So this means that it can be very difficult to determine the meaning of a > combination of concepts if the program does not explicitly contain a > reference to that particular combination. > > > That is completely false, it's like saying computer-programming languages > contain references to every particular combination, when in fact you only > need to understand the sub-components. Similar to how you don't need to > know every story in conceivability to listen to a new story and derive > meaning from it. In fact the very process of acquiring new information > falsifies your hypothesis. > > One way to work with this problem is to rely on generalization systems > in which the systems of generalizations of a collection of concepts can be > used to guide in the decoding of a particular string of concepts which > haven’t been seen before. However, when this was tried in the simplistic > fashion of the discrete text based programs of the 60’s it did not > produce intelligence. > > can you give some examples? > Cause C, fortran and a host of other discrete text string concepts > happened and seem to have produced significant intelligence, i.e. beating > world chess champions among a multitude of other achievements. > > So in the 70’s weighted reasoning became all the rage because it looked > like it might be used to infer subtle differences in the strings that > simple discretion substitution did not. However, this promise did not > hold up either. > > > Those are neuro-nets I infer, and they are merely one statistical tool, > in an arsenal of learning. Multiple forms of learning, in combination with > strong core for knowledge representation is necessary to achieve general > intelligence. > > Neither system have, in themselves, proven sufficient to resolve the > problem. My feeling is that the recognition that it takes many > references to a concept to ‘understand’ that concept is part of the key to > resolving these problems without hoping to rely on a method that suffers > from combinatorial complexity. > > > programming languages and operating systems don't suffer from > combinatorial complexity, or if they do, it is well managed, yet they are > the most generally intelligent things/thought-systems on computers. > > > Another part of the key is to recognize that concept objects may contain > numerous lateral similarities to other concept objects and that these > similarities may run across the dominant categories of a concept object > that is being examined. > > > Jim Bromer > > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Thanks for the friendly comment, but I am going to push myself to > start coding (experimenting) next month. > > > Great! the sooner the better. > > > Formal methods have to be tried and shaped based on extensive applications > of the methods to real world problems. > > > By doing some programming, you'll gain some insights into how computers > think. > Also you'll learn about how to think more logically and rationally. > > I am thinking of starting with simple simulations to see if I can > eventually find some formal methods (programmable methods) that can work > with the kinds of problems that I will throw at it. > > > What would you be simulating? > > > If I don't make any progress with that then I might try creating a > language which is designed to be extensible via generalizations. > Jim Bromer > > > Didn't you say generalizations failed in the 60's? > Did you know, that much like people, > programming languages, are extensible, > through the use of libraries .i.e. books of information. > *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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
