It should be easy to start testing simple versions of these ideas out. Of course, initially a greater proportion of the program will be predefined than a later version will be if I ever get to that stage. So, at first the program will have tasks that are programmed into it and you won't be able to see it getting much traction choosing its own path of inquiry unless my early programs work and I am able to solve some of the problems of (what I call) conceptual relativism. These tasks however, can be defined within a simplified vision of conceptual relativism.
The design of a program is not typically characterized in concrete terms unless it is a design for a conventional program. I could, for example, use terms to define a simple word processor program that would not be contested because designing a simple word processor program is not an unsolved problem. I am going to rewrite my program to be a text-based AI program. I don't need to use more technical terminology because you already know how a simple word processor might work. The program will be designed initially to try to pick up fragments of the text and try to relate it to other fragments in order to see if some combination of parts of the text are able to be used to navigate and steer the human user to 'discuss' the subject the program thinks may be associated with the fragments it is 'considering'. Initially this 'discussion' and the 'subject' will just concern fragments of text. I expect that it will find numerous fragments which are insignificantly associated (coincidentally associated) and some fragments which have some correlation but the correlation will not be very reliable. However, here the hope is that it would find some correlation (even low correlations) between fragments of text which have some kind of meaning. Once the program finds something like that, a sympathetic user could pick up on it and establish a primitive method of communication. As the program tries to work with different fragments of text it will be able to make systems of possible categorical relations. From there, it can explore other possibilities based on inferences derived from these categorical systems. This isn't going to be stock producer of corpuses of correlations between fragments of text. It will be designed to dynamically use these collections and their possible relations to discover paths (for example) of conversation (highly simplified conversation). It will treat these possible relations as conjectures and initially the program will characterize the parts of the conjectures and the experimental processes with 'objects' that I will define for the conjecture-and-experiment process. Since I am starting with something that is extremely simple, I will initially design the program to assign the parts of the conjecture or theory and the steps in the experimental process to these types. Then if, for example, the program tries to redefine a goal in order to make it match the results of experiments which varied a great deal it could note all this in descriptors of the simple assigned types. (The types of the conjecture-experiment process). This means that it could be programmed to avoid declaring a conjecture is valid by simply substituting more dubious experiments. So not only would these conjectures be used in a trial and error process but a (simple) meta symbol descriptor of this process could be used in the management and subsequent direction of the similar applications of the conjecture-experiment process. Jim Bromer Jim Bromer On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
