Durk,
On 4/22/08, Kingma, D.P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a nutshell (if I'm correct), your system initially requires a vast body
> of knowledge. Then, you explain that its 'trick' is to use its knowledge to
> solve a subject's problems, by finding out what knowledge he/she is
> 'missing'. This knowledge must come from the AGI database.
Yes, though there are only little differences between determining what is
missing behind the eyeballs, and divining what is probably wrong in the real
world. The two are HIGHLY coupled.
> But what is the knowledge (solution) is not in the AGi's database, nor in
> any human mind yet?
Your question reflects a cultural trap. Hopefully the following will help
you traverse out of it...
We have been raised in a world of "diagnoses" and "prognoses", but in the
real world, situations tend to come in the form of dynamic cause-and-effect
chains which, in static situations, tend to look like a figure 6, with a
root cause, several subsequent links, and a self-sustaining loop at the end.
With any sort of populated DB, the system will almost certainly identify
some potential links, which will start the questioning process to sort the
potential from the actual.
> So, how is your system supposed to create _novel_ solutions to problems?
What is a novel solution?! Since THIS question seems to be driving much the
current AGI efforts, I think that this should be completely wrung out.
My program will identify the parts of the problem that ARE known and direct
effort to the "missing pieces". While this may at first sound trivial, this
whole effort started when I spent 4 full-time months doing what a single
query should have done.
> When I solve hard problems by discovering novel algorithms, my brain uses
> mechanisms such as finding complex analogies, not by using anyones
> pre-existing knowledge.
It is ALL pre-existing knowledge, except for that tiny part that notices an
"algorithm" (read that "a process") that is one (of many) (probably less
than optimal) way of addressing a problem.
I think there is a confusion here between "discovery" (observing something
that was previously unknown), "invention" (finding a new way of doing
something that is desirable, using existing knowledge), and "problem
solving" (finding a way through the labyrinth of {mostly irrelivant}
observations to zero in on how to improve a poor situation). These need to
be separately defined in terms that are conducive to implementation.
Steve Richfield
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
