Putting it into higher abstractions does confuse the categories. For example, you can have a state of an event or an event of a state where these terms do not refer to compositions. Or they could refer to compositions as well.
Jim Bromer On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > ARAKAWA Naoya : > Situation is a super-class of Event and State. > A situation is associated with time and place (location). > A situation is associated with its participants. > A situation is associated with attributes and relations of the > participants. > > > > > These should be put into higher abstractions. Putting it into higher > abstractions does confuse the categories. For example, you can have a state > of an event or an event of a state where these terms do not refer to > compositions. So then the events, states, time, place, participants > attributes and relations of the participants might be specified by examples > rather than high abstraction essences (which is what you were effectively > doing). A situation is associated with objects, a participant might be an > active object of some kind. But we do not want an active object to only > refer to human beings or animals. For instance in the concept of a program > we think of a computational operation as an active event but we also need > to think of it as an object in itself. This ambiguity is extremely > important in AGI because we want to be able to think of things like events > (or computational operations) as objects for a variable position. In > physics we need to think about active objects that can cause reactions and > so on. > Jim Bromer > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:14 AM, ARAKAWA Naoya <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello PM, >> >> here is a sketchy answer. >> What do you think? >> ---- >> As an abstract model, situational representation would have the following >> features: >> Situation is a super-class of Event and State. >> A situation is associated with time and place (location). >> A situation is associated with its participants. >> A situation is associated with attributes and relations of the >> participants. >> >> In the brain, the representation of non-present situations is >> 'imagined.' Imagined representation is somehow distinguished >> from sensory (actual/present) representation. >> Representation of non-present situations should be composed of imagined >> parts. >> >> The neural representation of some situation is associated with another >> as relevant. >> If the Bayesian brain hypothesis (or similar one) is correct, >> the relevance is measured by some probabily theory. >> ---- >> >> -- AN >> >> 2014/04/28 15:35、Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > How do we form situations in our mind? >> > >> > Some may be actual, hypothetical, or anticipatory. >> > >> > How would you model situations? >> > >> > Assuming that we have millions of them to choose from, how >> > do we ignore irrelevant situations and work with relevant ones? >> > >> > I have some theories, but I'd like to hear your thoughts? >> > >> > ~PM >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------------------- 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
