An Initial Definition of Conceptual Relativity for AGI
I just read that Putnam used the term "Conceptual Relativity". From
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~thorgan/papers/eminee/ConceptualRelativity.htm "One of
the key ideas of conceptual relativity is that certain concepts including such
fundamental concepts as object, entity, and existence have a multiplicity of
different and incompatible uses (Putnam 1987, p. 19; 1988, pp. 110-14)."
My idea of Conceptual Relativity goes further than this although I have
thought about things like the integration of incommensurate data objects (or
references) and things like that.
But to get to my idea about Artificial
General Intelligence, the nature of conceptual relativity, as it relates to AGI
projects, makes a demand that we consider the effects of such things in our most
fundamental definitions of the data objects that an AGI program would use. We
have to use concepts in order to examine and use concepts. An illustration of
Conceptual Relativity then is the case where the concepts that we use to shape a
group of target subject concepts might themselves be shaped by the process. This
is not a wacky theory but the expected experience of intelligent thought.
And the concepts that are used in thinking might be described as playing
different kinds of roles in these uses. These roles are significant because they
can be used to further generalize and categorize the interaction of concepts.
They are also significant because their use makes sense.
of systems of interrelated concepts does not have to be fully defined at the
very start of a computational investigation of the nature of conceptual
relativity. This is something that I have been looking for because we can't just
jump in with a full fledged AGI project. We have to start off with something
simple, and the over reliance on conventional programming objects has not
demonstrated any real traction in AGI type programs. By starting with some
simple definitions of how systems of interrelated concepts might develop and
play different roles, I believe that another step toward creating better AGI
programs may be made. We have to figure out how to manage these 'concepts' or
concept-like data objects so that they do not quickly lose traction when they
are applied to references which do not act according to some conventional plan.
The only way this can be done is by defining these systems so that they can
exhibit the flexibility of conceptual relativity and then create the management
strategies that will tend to handle new referential complexities as they are