On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com>wrote:

> The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically.
>

I don't understand this.  Computers can represent related data objects that
may be best considered without using mathematical terms (or with only
incidental mathematical functions related to things like the numbers of
objects.)


>
> I said: > I think the more important question is how does a general concept
> be interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas.  Actually this is
> not so difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated
> conceptual  interrelations integrated and resolved?
>
> John said: Depends on the structure. We would want to build it such that
> this happens at various levels or the various multidimensional densities.
> But at the same time complex state is preserved until proven benefits show
> themselves.
>

Your use of the term 'densities' suggests that you are thinking about the
kinds of statistical relations that have been talked about a number of times
in this group.   The whole problem I have with statistical models is that
they don't typically represent the modelling variations that could be and
would need to be encoded into the ideas that are being represented.  For
example a Bayesian Network does imply that a resulting evaluation would
subsequently be encoded into the network evaluation process, but only in a
limited manner.  It doesn't for example show how an idea could change the
model, even though that would be easy to imagine.
Jim Bromer


On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com>wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com]
> >
> >
> > Well, if it was a mathematical structure then we could start developing
> > prototypes using familiar mathematical structures.  I think the structure
> has
> > to involve more ideological relationships than mathematical.
>
> The ideological would still need be expressed mathematically.
>
> > For instance
> > you can apply a idea to your own thinking in a such a way that you are
> > capable of (gradually) changing how you think about something.  This
> means
> > that an idea can be a compression of some greater change in your own
> > programming.
>
> Mmm yes or like a key.
>
> > While the idea in this example would be associated with a
> > fairly strong notion of meaning, since you cannot accurately understand
> the
> > full consequences of the change it would be somewhat vague at first.  (It
> > could be a very precise idea capable of having strong effect, but the
> details of
> > those effects would not be known until the change had progressed.)
> >
>
> Yes. It would need to have receptors, an affinity something like that, or
> somehow enable an efficiency change.
>
> > I think the more important question is how does a general concept be
> > interpreted across a range of different kinds of ideas.  Actually this is
> not so
> > difficult, but what I am getting at is how are sophisticated conceptual
> > interrelations integrated and resolved?
> > Jim
>
> Depends on the structure. We would want to build it such that this happens
> at various levels or the various multidimensional densities. But at the
> same
> time complex state is preserved until proven benefits show themselves.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>



-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to