My head is starting to hurt. Feeling dizzy. Too many words not enough code. Please write this in a programming language. Any language you choose. Let's make it formal not fuzzy. Thanks, ~PM
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:16:11 -0400 > Subject: [agi] Conceptual Relativity > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > I just read that Putnam used the term "Conceptual Relativity". > From http://www.u.arizona.edu/~thorgan/papers/eminee/ConceptualRelativity.htm > "One of the key ideas of conceptual relativity is that certain > concepts including such fundamental concepts as object, entity, and > existence have a multiplicity of different and incompatible uses > (Putnam 1987, p. 19; 1988, pp. 110-14)." > > My idea of Conceptual Relativity goes further than this although I > have talked about things like the integration of incommensurate data > objects (or references) and things like that. > > But to get to what I was saying recently in another message, the > nature of conceptual relativity, as it relates to AGI projects, makes > a demand that we consider the effects of such things in our most > fundamental definitions of the data objects that an AGI program would > use. We have to use concepts in order to examine and use concepts. An > illustration of Conceptual Relativity then is the case where the > concepts that we use to shape a group of target subject concepts might > themselves be shaped by the process. As I suggested, this is not a > wacky theory but the expected experience of intelligent thought. > > And the concepts that are used in thinking might be described as > playing different kinds of roles in these uses. These roles are > significant because they can be used to further generalize and > categorize the interaction of concepts. They are also significant > because their use makes sense. > > This definition of systems of interrelated concepts does not have to > be fully defined at the very start of a computational investigation of > the nature. This is something that I have been looking for because we > can't just jump in with a full fledged AGI project. We have to start > off with something simple, and the over reliance on conventional > programming objects has not been demonstrated any real traction in AGI > type programs. By starting with some simple definitions of how > systems of interrelated concepts might develop and play different > roles, I believe that another step toward creating better AGI programs > may be made. We have to figure out how to manage these 'concepts' or > concept-like data objects so that they do not quickly lose traction > when they are applied to references which do not act according to some > conventional plan. The only way this can be done is by defining these > systems so that they can exhibit the flexibility of conceptual > relativity and then create the management strategies that will tend to > handle new referential complexities as they are discovered. > > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc > 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
