My simple AGI project is based on a somewhat complicated database management
program that I started to write 10 years ago. I found a stripped down version
of and I have been trying to get it going but it has been very difficult since
it was so heavily stripped and I can only work on it a few hours a day. When I
came across an annoying problem with Microsoft's complier programming model, I
started looking for my old db management program and I found a more complete
version. So I should be able to use the more complete version to get working on
my AGI theories very soon.
My current theory is that the AGI may be simpler than we think. My theories
about conceptual structure and reason-based reasoning are somewhat vague and
perhaps simplistic. However, I don't recall anyone talking about this with me
and that suggests that the theory is slightly different than you'll find in the
major paradigms that are going around these days. So even though (I believe)
the conceptual structure theory has to be fundamental to any AGI program I am
now thinking that because I am looking at it as distinct idea I might be on to
something. If I am right, I should be able to get some crude results in the
next few months.
If I actually got something working I would want to talk about it, but I think
I would be less inclined to try to discuss it with people who are not actually
interested (since I would have something more interesting to do with my spare
time.) And of course many of the armchair critics who are already convinced
that I am clueless will not be interested even if I did get some interesting
results.
The conceptual structure theory is very simple. When we refer to an idea
(directly or implicitly) we are usually referring to complex combinations of
methods. These subcomponents of ideas, like a particular application of a
general method, can themselves be studied more carefully so we are left with a
relativistic model of a concept or an idea. There are no absolute fundamentals
of a concept. So, for an example, an action may be distinctly modeled but we
still might suggest that there are variations to the action model that we want
to assign to the same action name. 'Picking up a cup' is not a single action
consisting of only one sequence of actions but it has to consist of numerous
variations. And we can continue to analyze any particular action in novel
ways. For instance we might want to define the action with greater reference
to the background of the action. I say the same thing goes for any simple
concept. And we can only think about a concept in terms of other concepts. So
there is no such thing as an elemental concept, although we can store distinct
models as prototypes, and there is no way to represent a concept except by
injecting other concepts into the representation.
>From this reasoning I have concluded that it takes a great deal of knowledge
>to know one simple thing. So even if most of what you know is wrong, there
>are still some core ideas that you can take out of that knowledge. (However,
>that core knowledge is not elemental even if it is foundational to your
>thinking.)
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
