On 3 xxx -1, Marchal wrote: > Scott D. Yelich wrote: > >Knowledge is when predicted. > Interesting (?). Could you elaborate a little bit? > Bruno
Thank you for being interested. Please understand that I do not have a background in philosophy, logic or computer science, per se. I am only interested in what can work in a way that is easy to understand. I joined the everything list because I am interested in AI. Actually, I'm interested in what I was calling "Real AI" ... and now I find some people are referring to it as "New AI," and this is somewhat good as I no longer think I am alone in the direction I chose and I feel safe unencrypting my efforts. I have been thinking about AI as a past-time since about 1988 and I can remembering tinkering a little long before that. My current goal has been to implement a system that is capable of unrestrained evolution, but evolution based on Intelligence -- not wet-ware. This system doesn't have to be perfect, mathematically sound or proveably complete. It just needs to work. To do this, I was trying to come up with my own theory of everything that I could use to code. If I can understand the scope of something -- I can code it. What I see on this list is a lot of smart people who argue about the one true way. I'm not really interested in the one true way -- just any one way that (is sufficient and) works. I have been trying to gather any little bit of insight from this list during the time that I have been watching it. I have come up with: Difference is not the same, even when it's the same difference. Difference is not the same, even if it's the same difference. I can't decide over the difference of those two, that is -- which I prefer. I doesn't seem to matter too much as it all comes back to language being meaningless at the lowest level anyway. I have posted this difference thing to the list and, of course, it was ripped apart. I have yet to get a clear response from anyone, especially people who think that time doesn't exist. The reason why I have been pursuing that so strongly is I am basing everything on the fact that "everything" doesn't (or can't) happen at once. I have been able to explain everything using this quirky little ToE and since I can code this ToE, I am quite satisfied. To me, if there isn't difference, then everything is the same. To go to the opposite, right when there is difference, how can this be determined? It just seemed to me that when there is difference, it is then possible to start to define things -- that is, things are no longer all the same (ie: things are defined by difference, not by sameness -- we define things through differentiation). The issue is how to tell what is different? I can't quite come up with an intelligent enough way to explain this, but it's basically that if there isn't time, everything is the same. There are no two different points to use as what this list might call observer moments, there would be only 1 observer moment -- and I'd go so far to claim that then that observer moment was really impossible (at least from within the system). All of this crazy and seemingly circular musing just lead me to base my ToE on the fundamental building block of "difference" ... In order to code a system that has real AI, I came up with the follwing ways to define things so I could code them: Knowledge is when predicted. Concepts are reduction or expansion of knowledge. Meaning is a concept that is relative and arbitrary. Reasoning is the ability to create meaning through explanation. Intelligence is the ability to judge better or worse via reasoning. Communication is to convey meaning over language, which is arbitary. Life desires sameness, but exists only in a world of difference. Life desires sameness, but existence is only difference. The last two lines show the circle and how the system becomes a perpetual-motion machine. The idea behind those lines is that the term on the left is what we humans tend to reference when talking about life, learning and intelligence. The stuff after the word "is" is how I plan to achieve the words at the left (the last line could be: Life is difference, but desires sameness). So: differentiate - discern - store - recall = biological learning approximate - choose - predict - compare = computational learning I recently switched jobs, but I should be able to get back to some coding RSN (I hope), but this was mostly finalized by Dec 25, 2000. Coding was started then. To me, this is extremely exciting. I have been coding the "biological" side of this system. Basically, it's an IO system based around UNIX sockets where the system can create/destroy new "connections" itself. This is just the way I chose to model my ideas -- it's not the only way possible. Anyway, I am using these IO paths as senses. The system then automatically "nodifies" the inputs/outputs of these senses so that it can learn, biologically, from its environment. This is done so that some "learning" is inherent to the system, at least at the "biological" level -- but it is all based on the Difference ToE. So, the premise is that if the system knows certain things biologically, then perhaps that could be the foundation for a higher level. What does it mean to "know" something? Well, at the biological level, it means that what the system is currently trying to figure out if it "knows" is either already stored or not. So, this stuff is "nodified" (ie: discerned). However, part of nodifying/storing is that the same sense doesn't create two nodes for the same thing, so the system will know, at least biologically, if it has experienced this sense before. The next level is computational. By comparing some possibilities and if one matches, this means that the system "knows" on a computational level. Example: physics .... somehow we can predict the path of projectile with great accuracy. To me, this means we "know" something (and more than likely actually "know" many things in order to do this, but that's not the argument). That's an advanced example, but I think it can be reduced down to things such as syntax, grammar, etc. The bottom line here is that, so far, I haven't found a single person who can break my ToE or the terms as how I have them defined above. Since I can code what I have defined above -- I am satisfied. I also use that list to try to reduce what people are saying on this list to see if anything new is happening, instead of the seemingly constant vicious circle of bickering over nits. I'd rather simply evolve bits. Scott ps: So, to code an AI -- Knowledge is when predicted. If something can be predicted, then that "something" is "knowledge" Concepts are reduction or expansion of knowledge. The system will perform certain tasks in order to predict. When this same "certain tasks" can be used to predict more than one single instance, then this is a "concept" ... that is, this procedure is taken itself to be something. Meaning is a concept that is relative and arbitrary. Meaning is simply a concept. Meaning, like language, is simply brought about by consensus. Meaning doesn't have to be right/correct, it only has to be a concept that is accepted (to the entity itself, or shared with other entities). Reasoning is the ability to create meaning through explanation. This is also similar to predicting. However, this uses the rules (logic?) of reasoning, vs the end point. Again, reasoning doesn't have to be correct, it only has to be a concept. This is similar to concepts, except that this is almost like the "act" of creating a concept. Intelligence is the ability to judge better or worse via reasoning. This is the crux. Intelligence is simply a (I forget what the CS people call this... I'm sure the minute I send this damn post I'll remember) ... way to determine when something is better or worse. This is completely arbitrary because an entity can choose to believe that something is better or worse regardless of any relation to "reality" ... but this is still intelligence, as the "fitness" of the entity is compared to others. Communication is to convey meaning over language, which is arbitary. See Meaning. To me, communication is simply a symbolizing of concepts -- that is, communication is meaning. It's relative and arbitrary. It's thhat the purpose of communication is different than that of meaning and concepts. Life desires sameness, but exists only in a world of difference. Life desires sameness, but existence is only difference. If there only sameness, there is nothing. When there is difference, life seems to want to figure out why. Figuring out why means seeking the sameness (which doesn't exist). This is what people might call "will" or "purpose (of life)" ... etc. There are, of course, other little things that need to be in place in this system, but they are minor as compared to the overall philosophy. The other simple things is that this system can't evolve in a vacuum. That is, a system can not go outside its bounds, but through interacting with its environment, the system expands its universe beyond what it could ever hope to understand fully -- and this is enough to drive it perpetually. Scott
