JB: 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.
PICK UP THE CUP presents more or less the same basic problem as GO TO THE KITCHEN The cup can be in an infinite diversity of positions and situations relative to you, the agent, in a given room or field - and require an infinite diversity of hand/arm routes to pick it up. Similarly the route to the kitchen can take/require an infinite diversity of forms and require an infinite diversity of forms of travel. Pray tell how you are going to model the infinite diversity of forms required by PICK UP THE CUP with your verbal database. What are the core elements/words? On 2 August 2013 13:33, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > 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
