Bipin Indurkhya would take it one step further and say, we don't juts find relationships,we create them. He explains this in his book Metaphor and Cognition. See: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphor-Cognition-Interactionist-Approach-Cognitive/dp/0792316878 Piaget would also agree that the relationships are constructed rather than detected. ~PM
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:42:17 -0500 > Subject: [agi] Coherent Knowledge and Reason Based Reasoning > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > I believe that a (moderate) coherentist approach makes sense. You can > use logic, correlation, abstraction, synthesis, generalization, > specification, probability and conjecture across the conceptual > objects of the system. But when some objects of interest are found to > be related, I think there should be an attempt to find out why or how > they are related. I feel that mere association or correlation is not > enough to act as a basis for AGI. The program has to search for > reason-based reasoning as well. If a reason can't be found or the > observations do not stand out then association or correlation is > adequate, but the idea that association or correlation is substantial > as a basis for knowledge just does not seem right to me. > 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
