ONT Re: Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
PRO. Note 46
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Systems Theory and Artificial Intelligence
If the principles of systems theory are taken seriously in their
application to AI, and if the tools that have been developed for
dynamic systems are cast in with the array of techniques that are
used in AI, a host of difficulties almost instantly arises. One
obstacle to integrating systems theory and artificial intelligence
is the bifurcation of approaches that are severally specialized for
quantitative and qualitative realms, the unavoidable differences
between real-continuous and boolean-discrete domains. My way of
circumventing this obstruction will be to extend the compass of
differential geometry and the rule of logic programming to what
I see as a locus of natural contact. Continuing the inquiry to
naturalize intelligent systems as serious subjects of dynamic
systems theory, a whole series of further questions comes up:
1. What is the proper notion of state?
2. How is the knowledge component,
the "intellectual property" of
the state, to be characterized?
In accord with customary definitions, the knowledge component would need to be
represented as a projection onto a knowledge subspace. In those intelligences
for whom not everything is knowledge, or at least for whom not everything is
known at once, that is, the great majority of those we are likely to know,
there must be an alternate projection onto another subspace. Some real
difficulties begin here which threaten to entangle our own resources
intelligence of irretrievably.
The project before me is simply to view intelligent systems as systems,
to take the ostended substantive seriously. To succeed at this it will
be necessary to answer several questions:
3. What is the proper notion of a state vector?
We need to analyze the state of the system into a knowledge component and
a remaining or a sustaining component. This "everything else" component
may be called the physical component so long as this does not prejudice
the issue of a naturalistic aim, which seeks to understand all components
as 'physis', that is, as coming under the original Greek idea of a natural
process. Even the ordinary notion of a state vector, though continuing to
be useful as a basis of analogy, may have to be challenged:
4. Are the state elements, the moments of
the system's experience, really vectors?
Consider the bare frame of a venn diagram, overlapping pools of elements
arrayed on a nondescript plain, an arena of conventional measure but not
routinely examined significance. With this picture in mind as a backdrop,
a certain figure of speech, a chiasmus, may be used to get my point across:
The universe of discourse, as a system of objective realities, is something
that is not yet perfectly described. And yet it can be currently described
in the signs and the symbols of a discursive universe. By this is meant
a formal language that is built up on terms that are taken to be simple.
Yet the simplicity of the chosen terms is not an absolute property but
a momentary expedient, a side-effect of their current interpretation.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o