@Jim Agreed, but it's too "iffy" still. Maybe we could just start by saying: "It is so. Now what?"
Surely we have enough know between "us" to be more concrete? The philosophical underpinnings are explicit and mature. The reasoning logic has matured (very few additions in the last 10 years, but I sense its wave-like approach). Thus, is the quantum, earth-world. Lately, I see emerging, a confusion of sorts, of trying to unify the quantum-earth world with the quantum non-terrestrial world. I doubt we'll achieve such using reason alone. It stands to reason, to unreason, concretely so. If we don't, we are merely issuing statements, which confirm our own notion of our relative reality of some fuzzy-wuzzy randomness out there, which we would acknowledge, but have no solid idea how it really works. Ages ago, Plato, Aristotle, and many others already acknowledged that. In essence then, if we dared to just accept that it was so, what is stopping us from applying it with insight, gamble, and enlightenment? A simple, content-independent approach of: Plan, Do , Check, Act. From there would emerge the new beginnings. That is the simplicity that I detect in both RALA and Lakoff. What do others see? I takes longer to connect the dots, than to make them. For persons such as us, it should be about being expert at both applied reason and applied unreason. Its the debate of quantum essence, or of gene selection. Which gene would win out in any instance of a particular form? Rob Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:23:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [agi] Non Conventional Integration of Otherwise Familiar Ideas Can Help You From: a...@listbox.com To: a...@listbox.com In AGI we can have Concepts which may have many different features including non-obvious features. With a lot of variety a lot of systems of interrelations may be built on the abstractions and generalizations of these features. This is exactly the kind of situation where the features that are used to index or otherwise build a relation between Concepts can be confused when under the pressure to use the Concept. So even though you might have a way to find the best logical approach for a particular problem it still can be easy to lose track of the reasons and ways that the particular approach works. Relying on the most frequently used relations then can become a short cut where the reasons for the logical approach are well known or they are implied by many of the most commonly used features of the relevant Concepts. Jim Bromer On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI <a...@listbox.com> wrote: Thanks Jim A good reminder on subjectivity. The essence then, is that we should maybe have in our thought "toolkit" the widest and narrowest perspectives we could hold on relativism, and from there emerge a logical approach best suited to a particular problem. Personally, how I understand the notion of a context, information could not be shown to exist, unless it was placed in a context. With this, one proposes a generic construct of reasoning towards formulating any understanding of some form of an objective system. Rob > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:53:22 -0500 > Subject: [agi] Non Conventional Integration of Otherwise Familiar Ideas Can > Help You > From: a...@listbox.com > To: a...@listbox.com > > We programmers can become habituated in our thinking about mundane > things like variables and procedural methods in programming. This > thinking would not be a problem if we were able to keep an open mind > when we need to develop ideas in special ways but the problem is that > a flexibility of mind tends to become weaker over time just because > our typical mindsets work so well in normal circumstances. > > However, when working on problems for which conventional and standard > methods have failed, then it is definitely time to rethink your > assumptions about the tools that you use. > > Many of the things that I could tell you about might seem trivial > because you probably already have many of the basics down. The > problems come from implementation errors (of thought) that you don't > see coming. Just because a standard technique (of thinking about > something) is usually integrated into other related (thought) objects > in certain ways that does not mean that is the only way that those > thought processes can be used. You know that of course. The problem is > that you don't know how to find a new implementation of integration > rules in order to deal with a particular problem. It is similar to the > AGI Frame Problem as I conceive it. When dealing with a new kind of > problem you have so many possibilities that you can work with it > becomes practically impossible to find the right tool (or the right > knowledge) for the job. What I am trying to say is that these tools of > mind may be comprised of component systems just like the components of > programming constructs. The problem is that your thinking can become > so standardized by the habitual use of these programming constructs > that it can become almost impossible to think about them in different > ways. Sometimes the only way you can rediscover the potential for > flexibility is to find yourself on the other side of some > rule-interference and start to wonder what just happened. > > For example, I came up with a context-free naming convention for some > rule-based objects that I was thinking about in order to try to help > clarify a problem. So I had references called, 'a', 'ab', 'abc' and so > on. But as I worked on the problem I became so engrossed in trying to > figure it out I soon found myself coming to the conclusion that since > the 'a' did not have the same value in all three referents that the > naming convention could not possibly be context-free. This threw me > off for a few days until I looked at it more closely and realized that > while 'a' had a value, the 'a' in 'ab' or 'abc' did not have a value > (by itself). It was merely an index reference that I decided to use in > order to keep track of the terms. In that sense, the sense of an index > reference, it was context-free: it referred to the same indexing > object. My sense that it had a value was a simplification of the > system. It was a part of a name for a variable that had a value, but > it was not in itself the variable proper. (The 'a' did seem to refer > to a variable because it was a full string. The 'a' in 'ab' or 'abc' > did not have a value because it was only part of the string that > referred an actual variable.) > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription 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
