I don't actually support the idea of semantic kernels or core concepts. Perhaps I am peddling an illusion, but I think that the underlying program has to deal with relations between concepts and the resolution of conflicts that may arise as concepts are formed and related. Those are underlying core concepts of course, but it is different than what you meant. The semantic content will not be derived from some core concepts other than they will be related and relationally distributed and so on.
Jim Bromer On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Great minds think alike. > > I agree, in fact I have three categories: > > 1. Structural, > 2. Structural Content, and > 3. 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 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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
