On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I am not certain of the appropriate mechanism and circumstances for > generating one concept, it doesn't help to suggest that a dozen get > generated instead... now I have twelve times as many things to explain. If > you are suggesting that concept formation is a (perhaps stochastic) > generate-and-test procedure, that seems like an okay idea but the issues are > then redescribed as: what is the generation procedure, what causes it to be > invoked, what the test procedure is, and so on. >
I just wanted to emphasize the importance of how new concepts actively influence the system (as opposed to being passively created). If new concepts don't do anything, you don't need them. If they can be observed and acted upon, they already change the way system behaves. This does look shallow without specific framework in mind though. In my current model, there is only a 'test', no 'generate': new concepts are not usually created at all (only to change resource quota), instead existing concepts are adapted, allowing themselves to be influenced by other concepts. So, from my current point of view, it's much more natural to look at what new concept does to existing system than at how it originates. -- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
