Please define "correlative structure". ~PM ----------- > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:00:21 -0500 > Subject: Re: [agi] Abstract Creativity > From: jimbro...@gmail.com > To: a...@listbox.com > > 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc > 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
