Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > 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*. >
Well, I just took it a few steps further and said that we have to find -reasons- for a relation. This can be done with conjecture, for example, (or from 'education') but the reason has to fit in with the parts. Correlation or association might be a starting point but then there has to be some kind of 'story' which makes sense. Of course this process often does underlie metaphor and metaphor can be introduced as a method of explanation but it also can be based on substantive similarities. And I also believe that the imagination is an important part of understanding and that without it insight would be impossible. I feel that the emphasis of metaphor as if it were the only method to produce insight-like correlation is old-school. Jim Bromer On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > 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
