A computer program 'interprets' declarative statements as procedures. This proves that a significant feature of interpreting declarative knowledge as procedural knowledge is feasible. It is a feasibility of an elementary requisite argument. It is impossible to even try to understand something that is written without converting declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge of some kind. It is impossible to write a text-based computer program which would -even- attempt to 'understand' something without it being able to convert declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge of some kind. This argument can be extended to say that any data that is input could be said to be 'declarative'. This shows that an important second feature of the ability for an AGI program to interpret declarative knowledge as procedural knowledge is also feasible. Someone still might not agree on some detail and someone might not understand what I am saying but it would be folly to declare that this is not a reasonable and insightful argument which experienced programmers can understand based on -their- common sense. Jim Bromer From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say. Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:07:03 -0400
For example, Ben's criticism was not very specific but he pointed out that my summary was mostly about declarative knowledge (or something like that). At first I was a little irritated because he had said that he understood what I was saying (or something like that) and I couldn't see how his criticism was relevant. Then after I thought about it I started to agree with him. Then I started wondering why I hadn't talked about the necessity of the AGI program to be able to learn to interpret declarative knowledge as procedural knowledge. But it slowly came back to me. It is impossible to -even- attempt to understand something without being able to effectively interpret declarative knowledge as procedural knowledge (of some kind). It is also impossible to write a computer program which does not effectively 'interpret' declarative knowledge as procedural knowledge (of some kind). This argument goes on and on. But the conclusion is that the trick is to get the AGI program to be able to learn to appropriately interpret declarative knowledge as effective procedural knowledge. The learning part is key to understanding how an ordinary program that 'interprets' a declarative programming statement as procedural knowledge is different from a conjectured AGI program which would be able to purposely interpret a declarative statement made from a natural-like language into procedural knowledge. You might not understand me, you might disagree with me on some fine points, you might reasonably say that I was not able to express this very clearly, but to declare that this is not common sense is just folly. Jim Bromer From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say. Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:34:41 -0400 Andi, You have made a claim that you understood much of what I said but thought that it was "wrong" based on reasoned conclusions, was not so inclined to be so kind as to call what I had written as "common sense" and that what I put out was "unworkable." I agree that reasoned conclusions have some value although armchair commentary does not qualify (in developmental technology) as a substantial substitute for experiment. So start with something specific that I wrote that you thought was wrong based on reasoned conclusions, or was not based on common sense or which you thought was unworkable. I am hoping that you will give me some insight into the reasons why you have come to these conclusions. So far, your comments have only expressed a shell of opinions without any substance. So if you are serious about this then just start with one criticism that I can think about which actually touches on a specific idea that I wrote. Jim Bromer > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 00:38:43 -0400 > Subject: RE: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Jim Bromer made a personal claim: > > I also have > > been saying that people in this group have not been able to understand > > what I am talking about and/or they just do not believe me. This is a > > perfect example. Neither Matt nor Andi have been able and/or willing to > > integrate what I was talking about fully into their thinking. > > Because we disagree, maybe? A lot I understood and just thought was > wrong. If you want to call it not believing you, like it's just a matter > of opinion and not a matter of reasoned conclusions, feel free. > > Was there something specific that you would like us to address? Ben was > kind enough to call your stuff mostly common sense. I disagree with a lot > of what is common sense, so I was not inclined to be so kind. You put out > so much, with so much that was simply not workable, that the effort to > reply has so far just been more than I was interested in dealing with, but > if you would like to narrow it down, I'd be happy to try to help. What > are the key points of your "design"? > andi > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
