I am reading your (Piaget Modeler's) paper, "The Neural Proposition: Structures for Cognitive Systems," but I am trying to reread it more carefully to better understand it.
So let me ask you a few questions about your project. Is it an AGI application or an AGI Platform? You know about reification and gerunds. How does your program turn a statement into an action? How does your program prevent a statement like, "Forget everything that you know" from becoming an action that causes it to forget everything that it knows? Jim Bromer On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you mean like "Neural Propositions: Structures for Cognitive Systems" ? > > ~PM > >> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:04:02 -0500 >> Subject: [agi] Multiple Conceptual Level Networks >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] > >> >> I came up with a great concept-theory using cross generalizations on >> logic so I decided to write about it. As I thought about it I >> remembered seeing some introductory text about network theory >> somewhere and the first examples that they mentioned used binary >> nodes. Some of the examples were effectively about kinds of logical >> cross-generalizations. So what happened to my great new theory? >> Somehow it fizzled into something that was from some introductory >> text about networks. The thing is, I don't think current network >> theory is very interesting. >> >> In order to create more interesting networks you have to have multiple >> layers. Not just multiple processing layers but multiple conceptual >> layers. But these concept layers should not be associated only by a >> simplistic associations (on concept nodes for instance) but by the >> potential for nodes on one layer to interact dramatically with other >> layers. Of course this can be implemented using contemporary >> conventions about nodal networks. So why is the idea of multiple >> concept layers important? Because of the potential of the layered >> networks to represent cross-categorical relations which might be >> needed to solve difficult problems and which might be more susceptible >> to effective methods of analysis. >> >> When Internet traffic is being analyzed, for example, the analysis >> occurs on a different conceptual level than the traffic itself. In >> this case, there is very limited interaction with the traffic and the >> analysis. If the analysis is sent to a web manager then the analytical >> function is itself producing some traffic on the same system. The >> number of conceptual levels in this example is extremely constricted >> (there are 2 levels) and the interaction between the levels is tightly >> constrained as well. >> >> But it is easy to imagine systems where there are many different kinds >> of conceptual levels and a lot of different ways interaction can >> occur. Can you do this with conventional notions about sub-networks? >> Ok, but there are times when you need to free your mind from >> conventional thinking. >> 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 | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
