Analogical reasoning involves a kind of creativity but it is not the only form of creativity.
I believe that creative imagination is necessary for higher intelligence. You can see that animals do the same kinds of things that human beings do when they dream so this tells us that animals have an imagination. And since all intelligent activity involves the application of some kind of mental models to compare against sensory events, and to anticipate possibilities from that comparison, then intelligent understanding can be thought of as an application of imagination. (We only constrain the definition of what imagination is because it is usually used to refer to a special form of intelligent activity.) The idea of 'injecting correlative structure' can be stretched in a lot of different ways. There is no question that it goes way beyond analogical reasoning. Jim Bromer On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:14 AM, John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > OK, here is another way an abstract creativity would work. I call it > abstract because it is a creativity that operates amongst many domains. > > The world is full of correlative structure. A simple example is a circle. > It's everywhere. A more complex example could be a chunk of BNF, a > contextually free correlative structure. Another correlative structure would > be "symmetry". Many of the omnipresent structures can be cataloged into a > database. This is essentially a type of common sense knowledgebase. > > Then, creativity is the act of injecting and modelling correlative structure > domain specific, estimating computational expense effect in and after > integration, and choosing amongst with confidence. Being more creative would > essentially mean using more complex, less applicable, and more estimative > correlative structure successfully. This is very simple at a highly > conceptional level. Note that correlative structure might be new in a > specific instance and might be derived recently from observation. In this > model it is very close to what intelligence is, even to where it is a > component of intelligence. Also it does inherently include > counterfactuality. And even though it includes "analogy" it is not bound by > the cognitive concept of what that is. I find it annoying when people say - > oh that's just analogy or "analogical reasoning" and then it gets > pigeonholed into that circle. This might be some form of analogical > reasoning this is implementable for a specific model of AGI. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 11:16 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Abstract Creativity > > The view that an insight is a system based on observations and a lot of > creative explanations is a little problematic. > > But, just because a part of an insight is imaginative does not mean that it > is not a rational bridge in the insight (of course). > > So when we can come up with a creative explanation to fill in a gap of an > insight we would like to make the explanation utilize some observations of > effects in a way as to provide the explanation with more structure. So it is > not just an observation correlation but an rational explanation that > correlates with some effective observation points. Observation points are > often used in definitions and the rational explanations needed to fill in > the gaps are often based explanations for similar kinds of things. > > For example: > A programming language is based mostly on using a context-free grammar. > (Some of the observation points here are the programmer's recall of first > realizing that he is using syntactic grammars to write > programs.) > > So a computer program that is designed to learn can be said to be using a > syntactic grammar. Even if an AI program that is designed to learn a > natural language grammar through trial and error does not start with a base > of a natural language grammar, it still cannot be said to use no grammar at > all. It is using a computational grammar of some sort even if the programmer > does not consciously think of it in that way. (Here, for example, the > programmer might recall his recognition that computer programs are > inputting, rearranging and outputting strings of individual values that are > similar to or are characters in a syntactic string. > > A computer could learn a very simple context-free grammar through trial and > error alone. (We have all seen programs that were able to 'learn' something > incrementally and most of us are familiar with reinforcement methods so this > does not require a lot of fantasizing to arrive at the conclusion that this > may be feasible. And when you realize that what I am talking about is that > simple context free grammars only have to be treated as worded input > 'commands' -that are followed at least some of the time- then this looks > very feasible. In fact, it seems so feasible that almost any experienced > programmer who has some sense of what I am talking about could try it.) > > Finally, the acquired (not pre-programmed) simple context-free grammars > (using words) could be used to teach the AI program some simple natural > language structure that use context-sensitive and other natural language > grammars. (This is the conjecture which seems feasible if you accept the > other steps. But this step absolutely requires experimentation to confirm. > The skeptics try to point out that learning to use natural language requires > some fundamental knowledge of what the words represent but that is what can > be taught when the program is learning to react to simple worded commands > and later higher level explanations.) (There were few observation points in > this last part but it is really the rearrangement of familiar definitions > that are serving as rational bridges over the spans that the incredulous > skeptics of the conjecture object to. So even though no one has observed an > AI/AGI program that can do this, it really does make sense. If there is a > problem then, it probably must be due to the complexity of the knowledge > that would be required to make this an effective AGI paradigm. > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/248029-3b178a58 > 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 -- 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
