The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts - if
you think they do, you must give examples.
The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is
a) concepts encase a more or less *infinite diversity of forms* (even if only
applying at first to a "species" of object) - *chair* for example as I've
demonstrated embraces a vast open-ended diversity of radically different chair
forms; higher order concepts like "furniture" embrace ... well, it's hard to
think even of the parameters, let alone the diversity of forms, here.
b) concepts are *polydomain*- not just multi- but open-endedly extensible in
their domains; "chair" for example, can also refer to a person, skin in French,
two humans forming a chair to carry s.o., a prize, etc.
Basically concepts have a freeform realm or sphere of reference, and you can't
have a setform, preprogrammed approach to defining that realm.
There's no reason however why you can't mechanically and computationally begin
to instantiate the kind of freeform approach I'm proposing. The most important
obstacle is the setform mindset of AGI-ers - epitomised by Dave looking at
squares, moving along set lines - setform objects in setform motion - when it
would be more appropriate to look at something like snakes.- freeform objects
in freeform motion.
Concepts also - altho this is a huge subject - are *the* "language" of the
"general programs" (as distinct from specialist programs, wh. is all we have
right now) that must inform an AGI. Anyone proposing a grandscale AGI project
like Ben's (wh. I def. wouldn't recommend) must crack the problem of
conceptualisation more or less from the beginning. I'm not aware of anyone who
has any remotely viable proposals here, are you?
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:46 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
And programs as we know them, don't and can't handle *concepts* - despite
the misnomers of "conceptual graphs/spaces" etc wh are not concepts at all.
They can't for example handle "writing" or "shopping" because these can only be
expressed as flexible outlines/schemas as per ideograms.
I disagree with this, and so this is proper focus for our disagreement.
Although there are other aspects of the problem that we probably disagree on,
this is such a fundamental issue, that nothing can get past it. Either
programs can deal with flexible outlines/schema or they can't. If they can't
then AGI is probably impossible. If they can, then AGI is probably possible.
I think that we both agree that creativity and imagination is absolutely
necessary aspects of intelligence.
Jim Bromer
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/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
