This is all fine, but what science is there of structure as structure? I've been trying to sort this out recently. There are various versions of structuralism; I think one aligned more to science and one aligned more to the humanities. Gestalt psychology. System dynamics / complex systems comes to mind. What else?
It's one thing to say "the structure is such and such, and I have these relations which are invariant." But, it is another thing to be able to perform computations on the model which would approach general intelligence. On 4/17/14, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Great minds think alike. > I agree, in fact I have three categories: > 1. Structural, 2. Structural Content, and3. Content. > Once you've identified your structural relations, if you're going to > properly bootstrap this baby, then you next need to solve the Semantic > Kernel problem: i.e., what content relations are the core relations to > include. > ~PM > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:31:38 -0400 > Subject: [agi] Structural Knoweldge > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > There is a lot of evidence that humans, like other animals, learn > incrementally. However, my belief is that because we use ideas in different > ways a new idea can interact with other ideas. There are moments when > something that is learned incrementally can be leveraged to produce leaps of > insight. I call this knowledge structural because it means that an idea can > suddenly provide some greater structure to knowledge related to a particular > subject. The new increment of knowledge that triggers the structural insight > may or may not be the key that provides the leverage of the structure. It > may be that some new piece of knowledge just helps to crystalize some > structure in a way that helps the learner to better utilize other > knowledge. > > In programming and computational mathematics we find distinctions between > things like operators and operands and you have to be able to find > distinctions between other different parts of a computation if you want to > use mathematics creatively. However, I think it is obvious that the > situation is more dynamic and more fluid in thought. Some information may > play some role based on some other information so that it can react with > some other information and we just cannot categorize how some piece of > information might be used before hand. An AGI program has to be able to > find how information can work together to create greater structures of > knowledge. But for this to happen, the program has to be designed to provide > the structure that will ensure that the potential to build learned > structures is there. > Jim Bromer > > > > > > > > AGI | Archives > > | Modify > Your Subscription > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
