Re: The Doing Affector [is: "hypnotising" the machine]

"Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rick Craik" <rick@@icebergideas..com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[snip]

> > [...] We may directly or indirectly effect the environment, and
> > likewise, directly or indirectly understand the environment's affects
> > on us (consequences). The combinations may appear mysterious
> > looking.
>
> I can see the confusion in your text... Knowledge directs understanding
> which affects knowledge that directs understanding which affects
> knowledge; it loops like this until the understanding is complete.
> Intelligence is just sombody's opinion of this behavior and has no
> place in understanding intelligent systems.

Yes, intelligence has no place in there. I had presented some "Very
confusing..." reasoning quoted below to show how intelligence would
seem that way. I thought some more on this, and would like to try
again to show my position on the ability called intelligence.

I would liken your analysis of knowledge to how someone would
analyse the knowledge processes of a hypnotised person,
which has some similarities with programming machines.
Using this hypnosis analysis to build up a general glossary of
human knowledge and some it's related terms would require
some revisions when it is pointed out that the work
is within narrow conditions. I think this is how the work
on "intelligent systems" analysis appears to me.


> >
> > Your philosophy shows it's roots in programming. In programming we
> > implement an intelligence where the scope of usage and consequences
> > is extremely narrow; that is, our programs are very narrow minded.
> > Programming is the simplest way that a machine can acquire and
> > apply knowledge. Or more simply put, programming is a simple
> > form of intelligence. Of course, you can implement learning programs
> > where their knowledge increases, but not their intelligence, or where
> > their information increases but not their knowledge.
>
> Very confusing...
>
> In programming you pay close attention to data types and object
> classes. To understand intelligent systems you must pay close attention
> to knowledge types and knowledge contexts, its very similar.

This is consistent with your analysis. My problem with it stems from
my definition of knowledge - a persistent inference that gives a truth.
In your view, persistent inferences are deemed as always inferring
without a doubt; that is, we program in the "true knowledge" (much
like telling a hypnotised subject that the subject is a chicken and will
act like one). In my view, intelligence is about the maintenance of
persistence (or about precedents and the contingencies required
when precedence is broken). Your view would require a lot
of first order logic knowledge to handle my view of knowledge.

Imparting this sort of logic knowledge would account for
the "Knowledge directs understanding which affects
knowledge that directs [...]", and should work well in a
vertical application market: intelligent systems. The
more vertical these systems go, the more intelligent
they are.

In summary, I think your view of knowledge is based
upon using learning shortcuts ("hypnotising" the machine).

Regards,
Rick