PS., I meant this as a general comment, not as a reply to Piaget Modeler...
On 4/17/14, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
