Good Luck, Jim. ~PM--------------- > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:33:30 -0400 > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: My Relatively Simple AGI Project > From: jimbro...@gmail.com > To: a...@listbox.com > > Once I saw that concepts, like words, can be and should be treated as > types I started wondering if concepts could form the parts of > functional relations. The functional relations would not be exactly > like computational functions because concepts are so varied and can > belong to many classes or categories that could have an impact on the > evaluations. So since the functional evaluations would be individuated > and distributed it might not be economical to define functional > relationship for concepts. However, the idea is interesting because it > might lead to new ways of thinking about the problem. So even if I > ended up using associative relationships to define 'meaning-like' > values for co-occurring concepts, the insight that might be gained by > looking at thought as consisting of processes of conceptual functions > might be significant. And since highly varied Concept Types would > tend to produce Concept Structures in thought this means that those > stages of learning that require leverage could operate via Conceptual > Typing and Conceptual Functions. > So recognizing that words belong to categories (like verb or noun) and > then systematically looking at some finer examples (like seafaring > verb or noun) I was able to move on to recognizing that the multiple > categorization and cross-categorization of concepts led to Conceptual > Typing. Conceptual Typing then led to the idea of Conceptual > Functions. Since my programming model is going to be flexible I can > test these kinds of ideas (like Conceptual Functions) using simple > controlled tests or using relationships derived from active > conversational structures with the program. There is nothing too > radical about any of this but I am obviously the only one in these > groups who has been talking about it and it is also obvious that > people are having trouble with it even though it is pretty solidly > based on work in linguistics and computer science. What is really > unique is my willingness to extend these ideas (ie multiple categories > and extensive cross-categorization and the like) and my determination > to test them out with actual creative programs (imagination projection > and trial and error learning and gaining insight through Conceptual > Structural learning. Jim Bromer > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK, I reread some of my posts in this thread and so I made a guess > > that my lack of concreteness on ideas like Conceptual Types and stuff > > like that was what Anastasios had in mind when he mentioned something > > about a vicious circle. I really didn't get that before because I > > don't see it that way. > > The Conceptual Type is useful because it really should help computer > > programmers to see that trying to equate all concepts (or words) as > > being equal or equivalent not good enough to create insight. Although > > I would use a lot of co-occurrence to discover relations between words > > (or other observable events) it should be obvious that this method > > tends to be a little insipid when over relied on because words do not > > refer to all of the same kind of thing. Hence my view is that we have > > to treat words, concepts and other observable events as if they were > > different types when it makes sense to do so. > > My comments in this thread have not been very clear so I hope that the > > kind of explanation that I used in this particular message can make my > > point of view a little more understandable. Jim Bromer > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Anastasios Tsiolakidis > > <sokratis...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jim, > >> > >> It is not an attack ad hominem but your ruminations are becoming > >> increasingly circular and viciously so. Just when I thought we had the > >> simple project on track you found that either/and the issues are too > >> subtle and the tools too gross. I think you need a few modernity > >> updates too when it comes to applied computing, so here we go. There > >> are tons of "good people" out there that developed hosted or virtual > >> services so that you dont have to waste your time or money. Hadoop is > >> of course here to stay and Hortonworks were working on a Windows > >> version, but they may be giving up, instead virtual machines of their > >> platform are good for most purposes > >> http://hortonworks.com/thankyou-hdp20-cp/ . As we discussed before, a > >> real-time approach may be more fruitful than a kind of AGI > >> datawarehousing > >> http://www.information-management.com/dmradio/forget-the-warehouse-why-the-focus-should-be-on-data-flows-10024732-1.html > >> . The good people at http://www.mongohq.com/home will let you have > >> 0.5GB on MongoDB for free (and lets not forget such projects are > >> moving fast, it may already be better than what you remember), and I > >> guarantee you that if your program makes any progress towards general > >> intelligence it will discover on its own ways to register for further > >> free accounts as needed with fake IDs. Redhats OpenShift makes most of > >> the open source servers and services avalaible at a free tier, God > >> Bless America! > >> > >> In all truth, if one was to write a simple AGI program one would be > >> advised to write is a module/add-on to some existing open source > >> server, even as an Apache module, in order to have all the > >> capabilities of (network) server programs without the overhead. You > >> could even build simple programs on top of, oh the sacrilege, OpenCog! > >> > >> AT > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> This is a good summary of big data / hadoop. I noticed that Darpa is > >>> on the Big-Data/Jeff-Hawkins-Prediction-compression bandwagon with > >>> emphasis on time thrown in. > >>> > >>> On 8/21/13, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> http://strata.oreilly.com/2011/01/what-is-hadoop.html > >>>> Hadoop commentary. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Well I was just telling someone that I should not have referred to my > >>>>> "database management system," and instead should have used a phrase > >>>>> like, "data management system," because most people would think of > >>>>> something like a relational database system (like SQL) when I said > >>>>> "database management system," whereas the phrase "data management," > >>>>> could refer to modern data management systems like big data management > >>>>> or something else. In order to start with something simple I am not > >>>>> thinking of going big data myself, but my data management system is > >>>>> not relational either. I was reading that Hadoop is a big data > >>>>> management system (although I notice that they do refer to it as a > >>>>> "database management system," in one link that I looked at even though > >>>>> it was designed for situations where data might not fit into tables) > >>>>> and it is open source but it looks like it is designed for an Apache > >>>>> server. I did download an Apache server for my Windows computer and > >>>>> it was not an end-of-days installation nightmare, but it did take some > >>>>> hiking on the learning curve. I don't think it is running right now > >>>>> but I really can't remember how it works. I might have even > >>>>> uninstalled it. Anyway there should be some other open source data > >>>>> management systems as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> I also looked at Mongo but there was something I did not like about > >>>>> it. I did not stay with that very long since I had trouble getting it > >>>>> to run from Windows but there was also an issue where I did not know > >>>>> how to enforce a type so that if you started out with an array of > >>>>> numbers, for example, you could start adding strings to the same > >>>>> group. I guess you could, at the very least, do a read type check for > >>>>> every write but I didn't get that far. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think that if you don't have a good basic data management system > >>>>> then you are not going to be able to write a good AGI program. It is > >>>>> just about a pre-requisite. There are trade-offs for writing your own > >>>>> vs finding something on open source that you could use. I think > >>>>> carefully looking for something from open source might pay off, but > >>>>> then you will still have to create a higher tier of management for the > >>>>> system anyway, so it is a very subtle issue. And what I am finally > >>>>> starting to understand is that the preparatory work is vital as long > >>>>> as you have some good AGI conjectures to test when you get there. Jim > >>>>> Bromer > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:11 AM, John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Speaking of such, and related: is there a SQL that replaces SQL, does > >>>>>> anyone > >>>>>> know? A language like SQL that has its utility and ease of use, > >>>>>> powerfulness > >>>>>> and flexibility that is more cognitively oriented? If not, what an > >>>>>> opportunity exists now contemporarily to promote one. Maybe a language > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> emerges from NoSQL databases, but then it looks like SQL is doing that > >>>>>> :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't know though... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> John > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The problems I had stepping through the templates were related to the > >>>>>>> complications of the relations I was using for the AGI part. The > >>>>>> so-called > >>>>>>> Concepts used different classes that all used the same templates. > >>>>>>> When > >>>>>> used > >>>>>>> as 'Concepts' I found that there were times when three or more arrays > >>>>>> (from > >>>>>>> different classes) were involved in a single operation and as a result > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>> there > >>>>>>> were times I could not figure out which class 'owned' the template > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>> was > >>>>>>> being called. So this was a preliminary AGI issue (if my theories are > >>>>>> workable). > >>>>>>> It was really confusing since the operation of one class could be > >>>>>> dependent on > >>>>>>> the operation of the others. I could have tracked what I was doing > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>> paper > >>>>>>> and pencil or something but it was so confusing that I could not even > >>>>>> remember > >>>>>>> what the different algorithms were doing. By defining the common > >>>>>> operations > >>>>>>> of the arrays as individual classes I should be able to debug > >>>>>>> complicated > >>>>>>> interactions of the classes better. And the differentiation of the > >>>>>> classes is > >>>>>>> easier to track as well. And finally the debugging representation of > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>> stack is > >>>>>>> more straightforward. You are not supposed to define an operation as > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> template until you have all the instantiations debugged but my > >>>>>>> intention > >>>>>> was to > >>>>>>> simplify the original design process. It didn't work. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > Well, I guess you have to use joins for larger SQL databases but I > >>>>>>> > don't define relations. I can't remember what I did to cause the > >>>>>>> > errors that I first got with Access, but I was still running into > >>>>>>> > SQL > >>>>>>> > errors the last time I used it and I still have trouble with SQL > >>>>>>> > helpers. Since some SQL errors are so well known there should be a > >>>>>>> > SQL compiler or interpreter that can point out the most obvious > >>>>>>> > mistakes or the language should be changed so that syntax that > >>>>>>> > causes > >>>>>>> > common beginner's errors should not be allowed without using a > >>>>>>> > keyword > >>>>>>> > to designate it. But of course they can't change the basics of the > >>>>>>> > language because of legacy code. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > I would never program with SQL if it wasn't still in vogue for > >>>>>>> > business operations. - Jim Bromer > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> >> When I first started using Access for a business related project 10 > >>>>>>> >> to 15 years ago I could not understand why I got such bad results > >>>>>>> >> on > >>>>>> most > >>>>>>> joins. > >>>>>>> >> It took me months to discover that it was an issue with Database > >>>>>>> >> programs that were originally designed in the 1970s. I became > >>>>>>> >> outraged, because, for some reason I had once been familiar with > >>>>>>> >> the > >>>>>>> >> problem. (Perhaps I had tested some ideas in the 1980s and > >>>>>>> >> discovered > >>>>>>> >> through reading that the particular error that annoyed me was > >>>>>>> >> typical > >>>>>>> >> with that kind of db programming and the discovery that they were > >>>>>>> >> still using the same thing 20 years later seemed absurd to me.) I > >>>>>>> >> eventually learned to do some Access and SQL programming but I > >>>>>>> >> usually use fairly simple commands (I don't use joins in my > >>>>>>> >> commands) > >>>>>>> >> and then mix the data in the programs where I have more advanced > >>>>>>> >> control over the actions. (Of course more complicated commands may > >>>>>>> >> be used to increase security. But you would only use those for > >>>>>>> >> well > >>>>>>> >> defined and debugged actions.) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> It would be like suggesting that Ben Goertzel's programmers use > >>>>>>> >> Fortran. (I mean - like - whaaatt?) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> I also figured that if I wrote my own database management system I > >>>>>>> >> could make it much more efficient and that is still probably true. > >>>>>>> >> On the other hand, since I haven't proven my ideas even in the > >>>>>>> >> simplest preliminary tests it would have made much more sense to > >>>>>>> >> start with very simple list management algorithms. Once you learn > >>>>>>> >> how to save data and retrieve data to a file (it's not getting > >>>>>>> >> easier) it is probably simplest just to create arrays and save > >>>>>>> >> them. > >>>>>>> >> The only problem is that you then need an index into the lists (as > >>>>>>> >> well > >>>>>> as an > >>>>>>> implicit system of organization of the lists). > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> I thought that if I got a basic system working and then put it in > >>>>>>> >> template form (I don't know if you know C++) then I could just > >>>>>>> >> implement the individual components of the db management system as > >>>>>>> >> if > >>>>>>> >> it were a high level script. However, it took longer than I > >>>>>>> >> thought > >>>>>>> >> and once I started using it on some tests the errors became very > >>>>>>> >> complicated. I could not get the compiler to give me any idea what > >>>>>>> >> the values of the data objects of the template algorithms were when > >>>>>>> >> I > >>>>>>> >> was in debug mode and I didn't know how to write parallel > >>>>>>> >> algorithms > >>>>>>> >> to display what the values of data were when I stepping through it. > >>>>>>> >> (I thought about adding a dump as an unused branch and then since > >>>>>>> >> the > >>>>>>> >> compiler did step through the template, I could just use set the > >>>>>>> >> next > >>>>>>> >> statement but I was burned out by then.) And because you want to > >>>>>>> >> use > >>>>>>> >> little variations in the different kinds of lists (to make it more > >>>>>>> >> efficient) you are going to want to do a lot of differentiation > >>>>>>> >> anyway. > >>>>>>> >> (Templates are good when you use data of different types but you > >>>>>>> >> intend to use the algorithms in the same kind of way with only > >>>>>>> >> minor > >>>>>>> >> variations.) > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> So comparing the use of arrays vs using some db management system, > >>>>>>> >> I > >>>>>>> >> would say if you know how to save and retrieve arrays, then use > >>>>>>> >> them. > >>>>>>> >> However, since the arrays are probably going to be huge for an AGI > >>>>>>> >> program you are going to have to distribute them and that means you > >>>>>>> >> need to use indexes into the arrays that are saved to the file in > >>>>>>> >> different segments. And you need some indexical information that > >>>>>>> >> will help you locate some particular objects in large arrays. But > >>>>>>> >> I > >>>>>>> >> would say start with something simple and test some of your ideas > >>>>>>> >> out > >>>>>>> >> before you start making the db management system more complicated. > >>>>>>> >> But I am almost up and running so it would not make sense for me to > >>>>>>> >> try > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>> start over again to try to make it even simpler. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> So I explained why I had absolutely no desire to use SQL and still > >>>>>>> >> wouldn't but in answering you I reexamined a possible strategy to > >>>>>>> >> simplify my programming that I might be able to use. Even if I > >>>>>>> >> can't > >>>>>>> >> use this method of simplification in the database management part > >>>>>>> >> of > >>>>>>> >> my program since it is mostly written I could use similar > >>>>>>> >> strategies > >>>>>>> >> in the 'conceptual' management systems of the (planned) AGI parts.- > >>>>>>> >> Jim Bromer > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Piaget Modeler > >>>>>>> >> <piagetmode...@hotmail.com> > >>>>>>> >> wrote: > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> Venturing into the Void.... > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> "Umm...why not use MySql or Sql Server or Mongo DB for your object > >>>>>>> store?" > >>>>>>> >>> (Some of these are free.) > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> ~PM > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> ----------------------- > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:18:33 -0400 > >>>>>>> >>> > Subject: [agi] Re: My Relatively Simple AGI Project > >>>>>>> >>> > From: jimbro...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> >>> > To: a...@listbox.com > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > I am trying to refurbish a database management program that I > >>>>>>> >>> > wrote a few years ago and I keep finding additional lists > >>>>>>> >>> > (indexes) that I have to implement (the class of each of the > >>>>>>> >>> > lists > >>>>>>> >>> > is almost complete) and I just cannot keep it simple. I haven't > >>>>>>> >>> > even started testing any of my AGI theories and the program is > >>>>>>> >>> > already becoming too complicated. I intend on using a lot of > >>>>>>> >>> > data > >>>>>>> >>> > related to a concept (a concept like collection of related data) > >>>>>>> >>> > because one basis of my theories is that it takes a lot of > >>>>>>> >>> > knowledge > >>>>>> about > >>>>>>> a subject to 'know' > >>>>>>> >>> > one simple fact about the subject. So this means that all my > >>>>>>> >>> > lists > >>>>>>> >>> > will add to the complications of the program once I start > >>>>>>> >>> > testing > >>>>>> it. > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > The non-programming resolute skeptics do not realize how > >>>>>>> >>> > complicated a "simple" program can be. My database management > >>>>>>> >>> > program is simple because I am using variations on the same > >>>>>>> >>> > basic > >>>>>>> >>> > algorithms. In fact, the first step of my refurbishing the > >>>>>>> >>> > program > >>>>>>> >>> > was to take the class for the lists and the indexes out of a > >>>>>>> >>> > template that I had written for them and use write individual > >>>>>>> >>> > algorithms for the common algorithms that I had defined in a > >>>>>>> >>> > template 6 or 7 years ago. I found that I did not have enough > >>>>>>> >>> > details to debug the system using the templates even though they > >>>>>>> >>> > were working well and I was not able to figure out how to keep > >>>>>>> >>> > track of run time errors when there was a problem. (That is not > >>>>>>> >>> > an > >>>>>>> >>> > impossible task, but it was just one more thing multiplied over > >>>>>>> >>> > and over again.) > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > Programming is complicated. It may turn out that don't have good > >>>>>>> >>> > AGI because the management system for a program that is supposed > >>>>>>> >>> > to be creative is in itself going to be extremely complicated. > >>>>>>> >>> > So > >>>>>>> >>> > people get stuck into traditional programming methods just > >>>>>>> >>> > because > >>>>>>> >>> > they were partly designed to make programming a little more > >>>>>>> >>> > simple. - Jim Bromer > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> AGI > >>>>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > >>>>>> RSS Feed: > >>>>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 > >>>>>> 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/303/11943661-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/303/14050631-7d925eb1 > >>> 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/303/24379807-f5817f28 > >> 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc > 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
