One of my theories is that the development of general AI (AGI) has to be
based on the realization that ideas are not typically well integrated.
What that means is that there is bound to be something different about
an ongoing situation then the situations which you have previously
encountered. Typically, you need to apply previously acquired knowledge
in some creative ways to handle the situation. At the very least you
need to integrate knowledge derived from different kinds of experiences
to deal with an ongoing experience. But, I believe that the integration
of knowledge that was derived from different kinds of experiences is not
simple or smooth. Ideas that are used to interpret experience are not
necessarily commensurate. In more familiar terms of conceptual AI, you
have to integrate knowledge about different types of things in order to
deal with a situation. Different types of objects in computer
programming are not all commensurate because they play different kinds
of roles in programming design. It doesn't often make sense, for
example, to add an enumeration value that designates that a variable is
a certain type of variable with a value that the variable is designed to
hold. Different types of objects are not directly commensurate because
they represent data objects that are meant to be used in very different
ways.
People who insist on typing everything in the same way or according to a
single overly simple ideological outlook often seem to be a bit
obstinate or inflexible. Over a period of time, the subjective
observation of someone who interprets everything using the same formulas
over and over again makes them look less capable of achieving a
substantial foundation for greater comprehension - even if they are
convinced that their ideological vantage has allowed them to grasp
explanations that range over an vast expanse of situations. Their ideas
seem stale and they seem to expend all their energy defending their
ideological outlook and showing that their theories explain almost
everything. We all rely on some simplifications but those people who
insist that we all either use his inflexible orthodoxy or that the
subject of all of our conversations with him can only be only be rightly
interpreted using his orthodoxy rarely make much progress in defining
effective methods or convincing models. However, while people who tend
to overuse an ideological framework may be stifling their own potential
to form creative methods of problem solving for their field of interest,
they are not necessarily (in my theory) totally suppressing any kind of
creative conceptual integration. People often say one thing and do
another. So while, for example, a person may claim to have an extremely
objective explanation for all of psychology, his arguments may exemplify
subjective and emotional experience regardless of the nature of his
conjectures. This divergence between theory and his personal everyday
experience may even be covered by his theory.
On the other hand, a more flexible attitude does not always prevail.
But it should be obvious that creative problem solving is a necessary
aspect of learning. My argument is that it is also necessary for
thinking. So then, back to the person who repeatedly insists that some
dreary ideological interpretation should be used for every question. Is
he not thinking? Of course he is. As I said, people often say one
thing and do another. But there is also another reason to believe that
the theory that all thought is creative contains some truth. Think
about the person who has an overly narrow ideological point of view and
who seems to constantly fail to effectively master the phenomena that he
claims to be able to explain with his theory. The very fact that he can
convince himself of the efficacy of his theory in the absence of any
criteria of evidence is indeed evidence that his imagination is hard at
work to make his ragged experience look perfect. And that is all that I
am saying. Thinking requires the use of imagination to find how
different types of previously learned knowledge may be applied to a
situation and integrated to make sense of the situation. I never said
it was a perfect system.
Jim Bromer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.