There is no difference in *what* can be treated as an object or a situation, but they are different *treatments *of those things. Treating something as an object is a holistic perspective, while treating it as a situation is a reductionist perspective. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, depending on what you are attempting to accomplish. It would probably be ideal if a system could look at things automatically as objects, and then "zoom in" as needed, converting them to situations. This would lend a sort of fractal structure to problem solving, allowing relationships and interactions to be inspected at the most appropriate level of detail.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no difference between an object and a situation, because a > situation can be treated as an 'object' (of thought or otherwise be treated > as object-like. And of course situations occur inside of situations. That > is true even in traditional uses of the terms. > > Jim Bromer > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Can one have situations inside situations? >> >> What's the difference between an object and a situation? >> >> Kindly advise. >> >> ~PM >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:50:24 -0600 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [agi] Situations >> >> >> Greetings Telmo, >> I've responded to your comments below. >> Are you working on an ontology based AGI approach? >> >> Stan >> >> On 04/28/2014 02:30 PM, Telmo Menezes via AGI wrote: >> >> Hi Stanley, >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Stanley Nilsen via AGI >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> Hi PM, >> >> A few thoughts - >> >> One might try to come up with methods to generalize situations - put in >> categories and sub categories and sub sub categories... This sounds >> logical, but also terribly tedious. >> >> My alternative is to look at the world as sets of triggers. A trigger >> initiates an action - maybe to assert a new fact. The new fact might then >> trigger something else... >> >> >> Ok, but I don't see how this removes the need for an ontology. >> >> As I understand it, there are several efforts to create massive >> ontology. And, we can all see the "value" of it. The struggle is in >> finding the mechanisms that can cash in on that value - the magic sauce? >> >> I focus on how to become more intelligent when you start at next to >> nothing. What's the bootstrap look like? At what point does a computer >> begin to build it's intelligence? And, what do the construction elements >> resemble? >> >> It could be implicit or explicit, but you still have to be able to >> make more and more distinctions between triggers or actions. I tell the AI >> to book me a trip to Cambridge. What Cambridge, UK or USA? And then, to >> book the ticket I have to know that Cambridge is a town, and that I already >> know something about how to book travels into towns, and so on. >> >> >> Software "assistants" are pretty popular now. I understand Microsoft is >> planning one to compete with Siri. Maybe this is the way to the future. >> Start out assisting and one day take over :) >> >> >> You need some way to generalise, and this leads to some hierarchy of >> types. I bet our brain encodes a huge one. But how does it encode it? >> >> >> >> What is triggered depends on what our "understanding" makes of triggers. >> Pretty much a Rube Goldberg contraption, but gets interesting quickly. >> Understanding isn't that vague, it's whatever can be coded into rules. >> >> >> So you would say that a thermostat understands temperature? >> >> No, I would say that whatever is reading and setting the thermostat needs >> to understand the effect they want to achieve. The "user" chooses the >> thermostat based on understanding of outcomes that are expected. >> >> The thermostat is simply a "see" mechanism - it triggers something else. >> If you wrote a rule to act like a thermostat, I would say that the rule >> understands an aspect of a thermostat - e.g. numbers change over time and >> there is a trigger point. I don't think the rule needs to know about >> atomic vibrations, or the cost of a barrel of oil. >> >> I'm not downplaying ontology, it will be useful. I just don't put it as >> first priority in building an AGI. >> >> Stan >> >> >> *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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > 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
