I meant, why nod just start with very simple projections of conjectured relations? I think it could work if it didn't get bogged down by complications.
Jim Bromer *If you can solve a problem by avoiding it then your attitude may be part of the problem.* On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that grammatical categories can be used to derive meaning. But the > problem, as I see it, is that strict categorical interpretation will not > provide the kinds of information that an AGI program will need. For > example, a sarcastic remark means just the opposite of what is being said. > For another example, we sometimes wonder if a prejudice is behind a remark > that is made. On the other hand, this kind of assumption, that someone > makes critical remarks because he was motivated by prejudice, if made > without evidence, can lead to paranoia. But, the thing is, I think this > kind of analysis can give us more insight into how 'understanding' is > formed than trying to base our theories on strict mathematical methods that > have worked especially well with technology that produces effects in real > measurable space. > > How do I decide that someone has made a remark out of prejudice? First of > all, did he explicitly make a prejudicial remark? Did his statement have > any content-value other than a personal criticism? Could his remark be > attributed to projection or scape-goating? Using analytical methods that > correspond to these kinds of questions we can at least begin to assemble > some actual evidence that might support the theory that there was at least > a trace of prejudice behind the comment. On the other hand we can use our > minds to examine the question of whether the remark had any content-value > that is at all understandable. Did the remark seem to express a value that > the speaker had presented before and which does make some sense? If the > remark was a personal criticism was a criticism that would be applicable to > anyone? > > I believe that this kind of analytical projection is the best bet for > developing AGI thinking. However, there is an issue. There is something > missing. A computer program could, hypothetically, analyze data and find > strong categorical elements in Input. But can it use semantic insight to > initially derive insight into the semantics of some statements or the > meaningful possibilities related to a situation? It may not be obvious, > but why not? Why not just start with very simple projections of > conjectural relations? I think it would work if it wasn't bogged down by > complexity. > ------------------------------------------- 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
