On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> What do you mean by "checking a concept"? How does one go about doing > that? > How do people check concepts embedded in their neuron network? How do > you do it? > Kindly advise. > ~PM > My best guess is that the last question was about how I check concepts in my mind. For example, I have different ideas about your motivation for asking this question. These ideas are chiaroscuros and it could be a little awkward if I started describing them. They are generalizations which might be applied to many different people and to other kinds of situations. I have a great many of them available and I have other generalizations which can act as modifiers on them and so these generalizations can be shaped by using other generalizations. This is a component model of intelligence and so a relatively 'simple' concept may be distributed and further knowledge about these characteristic generalizations are not going to be typically stored along with the ad hoc collection of ideas that I have formed and are forming (about why you asked that question in just the way you did and so on.) When you respond (or eventually) I will have a little better idea which of these sketchy ideas (I had about why you asked these questions) was most accurate if any of them were. It is not a simple case of choosing which guess was best but of applying weights to the different theories as best as I can figure it out based on some future remarks that you might make. But it is still guess work because the chances that you will actually relate something to one of my ideas (about you) is very unlikely. Of course only a little of this is truly conscious. But, I can also take these evaluations and apply them to other people and other situations. What are the rules for making these future applications of theories about characteristic motivations? I don't know exactly but I assume that I will be looking for similar situations. So after I come to a conclusion about why you asked those questions in the way you did I will look at a shaped idea and presumably be ready to apply it to someone else in one of these discussion groups. However, that presumptive application via similarity might not be the right model to use (depending on how the idea is shaped.) So, I might actually make an adjustment to the structure of how I apply a shaped idea (about an AI discussion group participant) to another person or situation. I can (obviously) change the rule or modify the application process a little. The point is that the methodology of generalizing an idea is not entirely preset. And it is clear that ideas (or concepts) can interact with other concepts and that these interactions may be shaped by judgment and knowledge. Jim Bromer On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you mean by "checking a concept"? How does one go about doing > that? > > How do people check concepts embedded in their neuron network? How do > you do it? > > Kindly advise. > > ~PM > > > > Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:44:08 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Continuous Reality Checking > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > > In one sense an AGI program should always be examining how its > > 'learned' behavior is working when applied to the 'real world'. These > > studies would not always be intensive or occur all of the time. > > > > I also think that there is a problem since the same sort of methods > > that are used to develop concepts would be used in checking them. But > > given that the program is capable of some genuine learning the ideas > > used in reexamining a model might be quite different than those used > > in originally creating it. Of course an AGI program would be capable > > of, and tend to utilize, different pathways of thought so it does not > > even have to learn anything new to use different strategies when > > checking some concept against the 'reality'. > > > > In reason based reasoning (I think some people may still get annoyed > > by that particular idea) the reasons behind a concept (behind the > > structural relations of concepts needed to represent concept-like > > knowledge) may be examined and that can lead to different speculations > > about the concept-like knowledge. So this is one way that checking > > with the real world, or a consensus about the real world, can lead to > > some new insights. However, because this 'reality' checking is not > > keyed to some pre-set basis it will lead to more difficulties of > > choosing which ideas are more sound. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:18 PM, John Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> > > >> I think the question of how an effective AGI program can be > constructed is still > > >> unanswered. Even supposing (as I do) that you can start with simple > programs > > >> (that are not going to be powerful) you still have to answer the > question of how > > >> the program can create models of reality before you can check them. > The > > >> article, Hybrid Automata for Formal Modeling and Verification of > Cyber-Physical > > >> Systems, that you mentioned looks very interesting and the fact that > they are > > >> writing about something that is based on actual experiences is > helpful. > > >> However, since their modeling basis does not look entirely relevant, > you have to > > >> wonder if they are going to be able to answer the most important > questions that > > >> we -should be-asking. > > >> > > > > > > The paper is just an example of what can be done with hybrid automata > based model checking. It's not really meant to answer deep AGI questions > but rather be just a simple single color example in a broad spectrum of > colors. Where I noticed this is in my research of automata based > multi-agent emergent systems thinking trying to define agent structure > using tuples. A more grandiose model checking system would not appear as > specific... models might not exist as delineated entities in representation. > > > > > > To your point though - I think a program can create models in reality > by initially participating in a consensus reality de facto and since we > create the program and are participating members of the consensus as are > base physical systems and involved virtual systems lended to the functional > inception. Post "incubation" AGI reality pulls perception into it, so to > say, models represented could effectively emerge through realizing a > structural potential in a hosted abstraction medium perhaps through a > reaction-diffusion morphogenesis? In a multi-agent emergence scenario that > is... > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > AGI > > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5 > > > 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/303/19999924-4a978ccc > > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
