I did not react well to Piaget Modeler's comments but I can now change the way I applied my reaction and generalize it to make it more of a framework for dealing with the concrete-abstraction issues that seem to lay behind this. To answer PM's remarks, I have reconsidered many of my "exterioceptions, interioceptions, or proprioceptions," in spite of your opinion. I have had some minor nerve damage and I have thought a lot about it. I also often wonder what it is that I just sat on or stepped on or felt brush against me or just heard behind me or just saw move in the darkness that surrounded me.
I have always thought that the concrete-abstract thing was so old fashioned that it probably wasn't very useful in the modern world. After all, I am arguing for 'dynamic abstraction' and implicitly for 'dynamic concretion,' so the idea that these discussions would actually become bogged down by a failure to grasp the implications of more abstract thinking seems theoretically irrelevant (to me (given my theories).) But, I really see that I have to take the step and recognize that it is what it is (as some street philosophers like to say.) I am not usually interested in how I am sensing the cushion of the chair I am sitting on because I am more interested in things like how ideas have to be fashioned together so that they can be used to modify other ideas. So, no, the myriad of nerve stimulations that I am usually sensing is not, strangely enough, sensing what I am interested in. (The nerve tissue in the brain is not interoceptive by the way, at least not as far as is presently known, so that has never been demonstrated to be an adequate basis to ---explain--- thinking). Jim Bromer On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I do believe that I am always testing some hypotheses. For example, my > opinion of your remarks did not really change my perception of your > attitudes toward my ideas but it did, unfortunately, cement some negative > ones. This reply is going to be clipped for that reason. > > Jim Bromer > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> So what I gather is that you formulate hypotheses and you experimentally >> check the hypotheses (in some way). >> >> But you do not do that for all elements of thought, or for all your >> activated concepts. So this experimental "checking" >> is a special case procedure. >> >> I don't think the majority of your exterioceptions, interioceptions, or >> proprioceptions require such "reality checking". >> >> ~PM >> >> ________________________________ >> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 17:49:28 -0400 >> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Continuous Reality Checking >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> 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 | Modify Your Subscription >> >> >> 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
