On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's suppose that I claim that Ed bumped into me. Right away we can see
> that the word-concept "bumped" has some effect on any ideas you might have
> about Ed, me and Ed and me. My claim here is that the effect of the
> interaction of ideas goes beyond semantics into the realm of ideas proper.
> If it turned out that I got into Ed's way (perhaps intentionally) then one
> might wonder if the claim that Ed bumped into me was a correct or adequate
> description of what happened. On the other hand, such detail might not be
> interesting or necessary in some other conversation, so the effect of the
> idea of 'bumping' and the idea of 'getting in the way of' may or may not be
> of interest in all conversatations about the event. Furthermore, the idea
> of 'getting in the way of' may not be relevant to some examinations of what
> happened, as in the case where a judge might want to focus on whether or not
> the bumping actually took place. From this kind of focus, the question of
> whether or not I got in Ed's way might then become evidence of whether or
> not the bump actually took place, but it would not otherwise be relevant to
> the judge's examination of the incident.
>
> Presentations like the one that I just made have been made often before.
> What I am saying is that the effect of the application of different ideas
> may be more clearly deliniated in stories like this, and that process can be
> seen as a generalization of form that may be used with representations to
> help show what kind of structure would be needed to create and maintain such
> complexes of potential relations between ideas.
>
> While I do not know the details of how I might go about to create a program
> to build structure like that, the view that it is only a 'porting of
> structure' implies that the method might be applied in some simple manner.
> While it can be applied in a simple manner to a simple model, my interest in
> the idea is that I could also take the idea further in more complicated
> models.
>
> The point that the method can be used in a simplistic, constrained model is
> significant because the potential problem is so complex that constrained
> models may be used to study details that would be impossible in more dynamic
> learning models.
>
Certainly ambiguity (=applicability to multiple contexts in different
ways) and presence of rich structure in presumably simple 'ideas', as
you call it, is a known issue. Even interaction between concept clouds
evoked by a pair of words is a nontrivial process ("triangular
lightbulb"). In a way, whole operation can be modeled by such
interactions, where sensory input/recall is taken to present a stream
of triggers that evoke concept cloud after cloud, with associations
and compound concepts forming at the overlaps. But of course it's too
hand-wavy without a more restricted model of what's going on.
Communicating something that exists solely on high level is very
inefficient, plus most of such content can turn out to be wrong. Back
to prototyping...
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
