Remember that Eliezer is using holonic to describe *conflict resolution* in
the interpretation process. The reason it fits Koestler's usage is that it
uses *both* information about the parts that make up a possible entity and
the larger entities it might be part of.
Suppose we see the
. Porter
Porter Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:54 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Thursday 18 October 2007 09:28:04 am, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Josh,
According to that font of undisputed truth, Wikipedia, the general
definition of a holon is:
...
Since a holon is embedded in larger wholes, it is influenced by and
influences these larger wholes. And since a holon
.
-Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:51 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Thursday 18 October 2007 09:28:04 am, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Josh,
According to that font of undisputed truth
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:25:18AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
One way this group have tried to pursue their agenda is through an idea
due to Montague and others, in which meanings of terms are related to
something called possible worlds. They imagine infinite numbers
-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:53 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Semantics [WAS Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA]
Linas Vepstas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:25:18AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
One way this group have
I've always thought of it as
a feature of Arthur Koestler's somewhat poetic ontology of hierarchy.
Good to hear Koestler mentioned if not in entirely positive terms. I think
he's a v. important if pre-computational thinker. Cross his theories of
living creatures as Open Hierarchical Systems
-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:01 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 08:43:23 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
... holonic pattern matching, ...
Now there's a word you don't
Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:01 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 08:43:23 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
... holonic pattern matching, ...
Now there's a word you
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:25:18AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote:
One way this group have tried to pursue their agenda is through an idea
due to Montague and others, in which meanings of terms are related to
something called possible worlds. They imagine infinite numbers of
possible
On Monday 15 October 2007 04:45:22 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
I mis-understood you, Josh. I thought you were saying semantics could be
a type of grounding. It appears you were saying that grounding requires
direct experience, but that grounding is only one (although perhaps the
best)
Edward W. Porter wrote:
This is in response to Josh Storrs Monday, October 15, 2007 3:02 PM
post and Richard Loosemore’s Mon 10/15/2007 1:57 PM post.
I mis-understood you, Josh. I thought you were saying semantics could
be a type of grounding. It appears you were saying that grounding
RL:Just because System 2 did
not acquire its own knowledge from its own personal experience would not
be good grounds [sorry] for saying it is not grounded.
How can it test its knowledge, and ongoing inferences? AGI - human and
animal GI - is continual self-questioning and testing. What IS the
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 09:24:34 am, Richard Loosemore wrote:
If I may interject: a lot of confusion in this field occurs when the
term semantics is introduced in a way that implies that it has a clear
meaning [sic].
Semantics does have a clear meaning, particularly in linguistics and
-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:58 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Monday 15 October 2007 04:45:22 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
I mis
, 2007 9:25 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
Edward W. Porter wrote:
This is in response to Josh Storrs Monday, October 15, 2007 3:02 PM
post and Richard Loosemores Mon 10/15/2007 1:57 PM post.
I mis-understood you, Josh. I thought you were saying semantics could
The trivial sense of
semantics don't apply, and the deeper senses are so vague that they
are almost synonymous with grounding.
Completely wrong. Grounding is a fairly shallow concept that falls apart
as an
explanation of meaning under fairly moderate scrutiny. Semantics is, by
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 03:24:07 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
AS I SAID ABOVE, I AM THINKING OF LARGE COMPLEX WEBS OF COMPOSITIONAL AND
GENERALIZATIONAL HIERARCHIES, ASSOCIATIONS, EPISODIC EXPERIENCES, ETC, OF
SUFFICIENT COMPLEXITY AND DEPTH TO REPRESENT THE EQUIVALENT OF HUMAN WORLD
(617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:50 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
This is a very nice list of questions and makes a good framework for
talking
about
On Monday 15 October 2007 10:21:48 am, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Josh,
Also a good post.
Thank you!
You seem to be defining grounding as having meaning, in a semantic
sense.
Certainly it has meaning, as generally used in the philosophical literature.
I'm arguing that its meaning makes an
Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:29 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Monday 15
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:29 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] symbol grounding QA
On Monday 15 October 2007 10:21:48 am, Edward W. Porter wrote:
Josh,
Also a good post.
Thank you!
You seem to be defining grounding as having meaning, in a semantic
sense
On Monday 15 October 2007 01:25:22 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
I'm arguing that its meaning makes an assumption about the nature of
semantics that obscures rather than informing some important questions
WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN?
I think that will become clearer below:
I JUST READ THE
On Monday 15 October 2007 01:57:18 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
AI programmers, in their haste to get something working, often simply
write some code and then label certain symbols as if they are
meaningful, when in fact they are just symbols-with-labels.
This is quite true, but I think it
This is in response to Josh Storrs Monday, October 15, 2007 3:02 PM post
and Richard Loosemores Mon 10/15/2007 1:57 PM post.
I mis-understood you, Josh. I thought you were saying semantics could be
a type of grounding. It appears you were saying that grounding requires
direct experience, but
This is a very nice list of questions and makes a good framework for talking
about the issues. Here are my opinions...
On Saturday 13 October 2007 11:29:16 am, Pei Wang wrote:
*. When is a symbol grounded?
Grounded is not a good way of approaching what we're trying to get at, which
is
26 matches
Mail list logo
