On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
> 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. > So here you are saying that programs don't handle concepts but they could begin to instantiate the kind of freeform approach that you are proposing. Are you sure you are not saying that programs can't handle concepts unless we do exactly what you are suggesting that we should do. Because a lot of us say that. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
