[HS]

Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do. Focusing on the self defining properties of things, could lead to universal, internally consistent predictions. A bit like geometric extensions, matching right triangles, and the like.

Internal consistency creates belief, or at least negates the necessity for suspension of disbelief, leaving us in an ideal state of undistracted observation. Its the bedrock foundation of existence, allowing us to experientially stand in every environment.

Robots have vision, and we have perception, because we are able to layer the broadly consistent, mutually indicated properties of things over the otherwise meaningless data of vision. Images are passwords for memory. The eyes are combination locks for the brain. And the brain is a picky bank, (that's picky, not piggy), just making sure... It resists cluttering itself with unintegratable or weakly bound data, because such facts appear to offer only a few, or, uncertain points of implication, to the desired utilitarian world model.

Absolute logic is very specific. You need lots of it to cover for the whole world. I feel it is better as a tool than an operating system, especially for something as broad as AGI.

Anyone have any ideas besides extending internal consistency?

[Korrelan]

Electronic/ mechanical analogue computational devices don't usually utilize binary/ boolean logic.

So a clockwork timekeeper or a balance beam (see-saw), etc would fall into this category.

Oh.. Biological/ biochemical machines don't use boolean logic, the concept of logic is similar to language, it's a man-made concept derived from our understanding of reality.  The patterns we interpret as logic have been cherry picked from all the possible patterns of reality, so logic is just an interpretation from the human brains point of view.

In reality the separated colours of the rainbow don't exist, it's actually a smooth spectrum, the human brain creates the divisions/ categories.  Logic/ mathematics/ language are built from the same phenomenon.

 

[Art]

Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy.

Sorry HS, but I'm afraid my local Recycling Center would strongly disagree...We have to separate paper, plastic, glass from our garbage every day.
But this is just an analogy.

[HS]

I'm glad it's sort of legible/understandable! Great! I was worried I'd re-read it the next day and discover that it's gibberish. This theory was the result of the most multifaceted random indistinct epiphany I've ever had. But it occurred to me that Tolkien's theory of secondary belief, Peter Johnson's method of recreating whole medieval swords from just fragments, Lao Tuz's idea of mutual definition in the natural world, my own inability to memorize specific things, and Mounir Shita's video on xyzt knowledge entanglement, could all be connected to create the outline of a useful AI concept. By noticing the similarity in things, by inspecting the kind of fractal properties of things, one can extrapolate the pattern. One can perceive things in terms of their role in the pattern, a repeating wholeness of things. I'd better draw some diagrams...

[AndyGoode]

I have some good ideas but I don't want to give them out until I can publish them. I can say I believe you're on the right track, though, and I have two suggestions...

(1) Don't worry about internal consistency yet, because even humans don't have internal consistency. That relaxation of constraints will ease your investigation. You can always add internal consistency later.
(2) Look into the logic of chess, especially the logic of simple strategy. Chess players keep referring to 'logic' when they discuss how they play, but obviously AND, OR, NOT, implies, etc., are woefully inadequate for the tasks that chess players do. That means there is something *like* logic that chess players are using, and it's a system that relates to the real world a little better than what mathematicians are using, so that might be a new type of logic system that is closer to what you are seeking.

If you get stuck I might be able to help you. (Or at least play a game of chess with you.  )

[ruebot]

Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do.

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

[LOCKSUIT]

you mention chess........yes, you look at the board, see your guys, see moves they could do; choices, in fact you first choose your guy, then his actions that aren't blocked.

Which guy? Which move? It's a tree. Of paths to go down. Each branch has a vote. That's where multiple ANDs combine together. OR means do choice B branch if you see x or y, i.e. either cue will vote on the branch B heavily enough on its own without needing AND (both cues).

Focus on treeing, not AND,

[AndyGoode]

you mention chess........yes, you look at the board, see your guys, see moves they could do; choices, in fact you first choose your guy, then his actions that aren't blocked.

Which guy? Which move? It's a tree. Of paths to go down. Each branch has a vote. That's where multiple ANDs combine together. OR means do choice B branch if you see x or y, i.e. either cue will vote on the branch B heavily enough on its own without needing AND (both cues).

To be completely correct, because some chess lines are transpositions, that makes the paths collectively a graph, not a tree. Also, you're considering only tactics/lookahead. I think of chess as a discretized board--the board you see and the board you visualize--overlaid with another board of heuristics--a non-visible board that is analog, not discrete, and contains probabilities. The discrete board is the tactics, the continuous board is the strategy. That's why they call chess a game of strategy. The 'logic' of chess would deal mostly with the continuous board, I believe.

[HS]

Picking things apart into definite bits is a waste of energy. AGI shouldn't have to break all curves into countless lines to make sense of them, it should only choose to do that if it's a sensible thing to do.

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

I think that sensible is the opposite of mental, both physically and metaphorically. Sensible actions come from focusing on the senses, mental actions come from focusing on the mind. The camera  trying to see by looking at the monitor is being too mental. It gets stuck in a loop, it was using the wrong tool for the job. Being sensible is using effective approaches in your dealings with reality. (In this case, some kind of concept recognition instead of calculus.) The focus should be mainly on the senses, because they perceive the largest portion of reality.

[AndyGoode]

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

"Sensible" means "intelligent." Now it's your turn...
Now please define "intelligent" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits. 

[LOCKSUIT]

If you have 2 players and a chess board, it is indeed a tree Andey, yes, because think of a camera taping the 2 players at the table, it has a finite run as a movie, and there is only just so many possibilities. The root of the tree has ex. 129 possible states, and each of those has ~129. For a given Agent, his probabilities voting on a candidate choice of the tree branch weigh in and he picks a path. He may not EVEN see an option, oops he says i missed that path, and he may see a branch but not see votes of why to take that path.

It's a tree, although to the Agent it is just always feels like the current state where he is and that he is looking for choices + reasons to do one of them. That's it.

[AndyGoode]

This is what I mean by a chess transposition diagrammed as a graph, which looks mostly like a tree, but note that some of the paths on the right merge...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cNVCvQNxkkQ/UNZONkCry7I/AAAAAAAAAZs/p21dAAXLXGE/s1600/sicilian.png

[LOCKSUIT]

Yes i thought you meant that. Nonetheless as time moves, they are a different path

parallel universes lol

For that moment when reached, it will have votes (and a history of where it came from, meaning destiny path is better)

[ruebot]

Please define "sensible" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits.

"Sensible" means "intelligent." Now it's your turn...
Now please define "intelligent" for me, ideally without picking things apart into definite bits. 

Smart.

How "smart" would a machine have to be to know what is and is not sensible without picking things apart to definite bits?

[AndyGoode]

So, HS, are you going to work on this? When I recommend a promising path of investigation as I did, I really mean it: I would almost guarantee that whatever you come up with is going to be worth publishing on this topic. I'd almost guarantee this is an extremely fruitful area to investigate.