Xref: utzoo comp.ai:4856 talk.philosophy.misc:3013
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!mips!kung
From: kung@mips.COM (Kung Hsu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Knowledge Representation, A thought experiment
Summary: answers and suggestions
Keywords: thought experiment
Message-ID: <29249@intrepid.mips.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 89 01:01:34 GMT
References: <357@massey.ac.nz>
Lines: 87

In article <357@massey.ac.nz>, ARaman@massey.ac.nz (A.V. Raman) writes:
> Topic:  Knowledge Representation
> 
> Any structure conveys information of some kind or other.  In what way
> is a sequence of bytes in a file or RAM different from, say, a stack
> of books piled up on the table?  If we so decided, we could use the
> stack of books to convey the same information that the sequence of
> bytes conveys.
> 
Just look at the evolution of information systems, we will get some hints.
Sequential file, ISAM, Random access file, Relational database, Knowledge
representation. e.g. why relational database is better? Because that it finds
out that starting from the fundamental thing, *relation* between entities and
attributes, we can ask pretty intelligent questions (complex queries). Then,
what is the idea behind this AI knowledge representation? I believe what we
called  *intelligence* can be defined as the ability to induce common rules/
patterns/orders when observing a group of things, be it a group of objects,
a group of existing/man-made rules, a group of known knowledges.
Sometimes this is called abstraction ability. But intelligence is more than
abstraction. We will elaborate this later.
Knowledge representation today, as I see it, has the goal of making this
intelligent induction easier. I am talking about what is intelligence, I do
not know how. But we do believe human brain is the most intelligent system
known. A lot research right now is try to understand how its information
is organized.

> What makes us think that discovering a new mathematical law is any
> different from from the creation of zinc sulphate when zinc and
> sulphuric acid are mixed?  Neither existed before the 'event'.  Each
> depended on its predecessors.  In the first case it was a set of
> mathematical laws which led to the derivation of the next.  In the
> second case it was a set of chemicals.  In either case an 'event' was
> involved that resulted in the transformation.  What makes us distinguish
> these two events other than the fact that one 'creation' is a tangible
> data structure and the other is not.
> 
There are many different kinds of abstraction involved in discovering a new
mathematical law. First of all, facing a group of math laws, you have to form
an abstraction about what this math object is about, i.e. what is relavant and
what is not relavant. This math object is abstract, some people fails to see
this  level of abstraction from the laws. Somebody will say you do not need
this level of abstraction to discover, just do deductions from existing laws.
But application of laws is not exaustive search, the abstraction about the math
object, though not necessarily complete, helps to find out the goal. Then, one
can use backward reasoning. This comes to another kind of abstraction, from
the pure logical level, from the laws proved now, we form an abstraction of
how and when to apply different kinds of techniques: forward, backward, couter-
proof, induction, etc. These are all very high level and difficult abstractions
, that's why we say doing math is intelligent. While compare with later case 
which require not abstraction at all.
Intelligence form some time gets very subtle. There may be some intrinsic
functions in the brain that can detect *commons*. Sometimes these commons are
in higher level that yet can be described, or may be from a strabge angle that
also hard to describe. These may called instinct or inspiration. These happens
a lot. That is why chess Grand Master can beat computer chess with limited 
process power. 
> 
> If what we call creativity is a measuring stone to intelligence,
> hasn't Nature ever been as creative as we have.  Hasn't it learnt
> from mistakes, just as we do.  Or maybe this article itself is one of
> Nature's mistakes.
>                                                       - &/..
I will try to describe why and what is creativity using the concept of
intelligence above. The essence of intelligence is *to form* a rules from
a group observations. If once the rules is formed, to understand or to
follow the rules are much less intelligent. This why creativity is the
measuring stone as suggested. For example, Beatles' music is very creative,
in the sense that within the domain of music and human aesthetics, they
formed their own music phrase, music expression, music style (rules).
That is also why comments like 'True art has to be bizarre' was made.
One has to form it's own rules. Also, through the activity to sharpen
ones own intelligence. 
Sounds OK, but there's one thing not defined 'human aesthetics'. What else,
'music aesthetics' is just the regularities in sound frequencies and 
intervals. This is so fundamental, like langugage, it may be built-in.
I am not familiar with this area, but is there any theory describe why
Beethoven, Bach or Chopin are better in a more *AI* way.
I completely disgree intelligence and creativity are societal. In fact,
today there's no doubt that Newton's Dynamics is smart, Van Gough's painting
is great, Mozart's music is beautiful. Einstein's relativity is genius.
Isn't this proves that there's something intrinsic, yet we don't understand,
that is intelligence. AI and cognitive science should mtual fertilize in
the area in the comming decade.


-- 
Kung Hsu, MIPS Computer System, tel: (408)991-7762