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

"Rick Craik" <rick@@icebergideas..com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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
>
>
>
Me thinks we still don't understand each other. Of course I have been
presenting my material in the simplist possible way, maybe too simple.

Hypnosis brings up some interesting thoughts. My idea is that it invokes the
subjects 'sleeping affector' or simply disables its normal 'doing affector',
and while disabled in this way false knowledge may be inserted into the
systems memory. When the system re-awakes its doing affector begins doing
the false instructions.

Normally humans have intelligent systems running that act like 'firewalls'
to prevent false instructions from entering its doing affector.

Also intelligent systems are very complex in that they all have ten
knowledge contexts; Name, Authors, Purpose, Environment, Language,
Configuration, Operation, Owners, Market, and Value that are continually
accessed for pertinant knowledge that affects their operation.

But, remember knowledge is the stuff that can be written in a book and has
no life to itself.

Dave..

>