Changes

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

• [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

<p>Tell me where is fancy bred,<br>

<p>Tell me where is fancy bred,<br>

Or in the heart, or in the head?<br>

Or in the heart, or in the head?<br>

How begot, how nourished?<br>

How begot, how nourishèd?<br>

&hellip;<br>

&hellip;<br>

It is engendered in the eyes,<br>

It is engendered in the eyes,<br>

|}

|}

The faculty of integration is the capacity to reconstruct the splintered images that are fashioned with regard to an object of interest, to reform them into a coherent picture that captures the essence of the original, and to preserve a sense of vision that continues to inspire the desire to know more. This ability is argued here to be an critically important, but frequently neglected ingredient in the efforts to improve conduct that all the world calls "learning". In the aim to give this task the attention it deserves and to take its demands seriously, one comes up against, not just the prevailing notion that the whole exercise is not worth the candle, but the new difficulty of how to deny this founding notion in a positive way, and thus to devise an alternative that is genuinely worth having.

The faculty of integration is the ability to reconstruct the splintered images once fashioned in regard to an object of interest, to refit the scattered fragments to a coherent picture capturing the essence of the original, and last to preserve the sense of vision it takes to inspire a desire to know more.&nbsp; That ability is a critically important but frequently neglected ingredient in the quest to improve conduct all the world calls &ldquo;learning&rdquo;.&nbsp; In the aim to give the task the attention it deserves and to take its demands seriously, one comes up against, not only the prevailing notion that the whole exercise is not worth the candle, but the new difficulty of how to deny that founding notion in a positive way, and thus to devise an alternative that is genuinely worth having.

In this way, one comes to the following question:  If common sense, a faculty that is neither necessary nor possible to educate, does not suffice to integrate the senses, then what can be found to do the job, and how are we to train this faculty, as train it we must?

In this way, one comes to the following question:  If common sense, a faculty that is neither necessary nor possible to educate, does not suffice to integrate the senses, then what can be found to do the job, and how are we to train this faculty, as train it we must?

=====4.3.4.2. Transfer=====

=====4.3.4.2. Transfer=====

What really gives a distinctively inductive character to the acquisition of a knowledge base is the "analogy of experience" that underlies its useful application.  Whenever we find ourselves prefacing an argument with the phrase, &ldquo;If past experience is any guide&nbsp;&hellip;&nbsp;&rdquo; we can be sure this principle has come into play.  We are invoking an analogy between past experience, considered as a totality, and present experience, considered as a point of application.  What we mean in practice is this:  &ldquo;If past experience is a fair sample of possible experience, then the knowledge gained in it applies to present experience.&rdquo; This is the mechanism that allows a knowledge base to be carried across gulfs of experience that are indifferent to the effective contents of its rules.

What really gives a distinctively inductive character to the acquisition of a knowledge base is the "analogy of experience" that underlies its useful application.  Whenever we find ourselves prefacing an argument with the phrase "If past experience is any guide ... " we can be sure this principle has come into play.  We are invoking an analogy between past experience, considered as a totality, and present experience, considered as a point of application.  What we mean in practice is this:  "If past experience is a fair sample of possible experience, then the knowledge gained in it applies to present experience." This is the mechanism that allows a knowledge base to be carried across gulfs of experience that are indifferent to the effective contents of its rules.

Here are the details of how this works out in the "Rainy Day" example.  Let us consider a fragment K of the reasoner's knowledge base that is logically equivalent to the conjunction of two rules.

Here are the details of how this works out in the ''Rainy Day'' example.  Let us consider a fragment <math>K\!</math> of the reasoner's knowledge base that is logically equivalent to the conjunction of two rules.

K =  (B => A) and (B => D).

| <math>K \Leftrightarrow (B \Rightarrow A) \land (B \Rightarrow D).</math>

It is convenient to have the option of expressing all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or the elements of experience over which they hold true.  Let C be a chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances we have in mind when we refer to "past experience".  Let C+ be a collective set of experiences, or the projective total of possible circumstances.  Let C be a current experience, or the circumstances present to the reasoner.  If we think of the knowledge base K as referring to the "regime of experience" over which it is valid, then all of these sets of models can be compared by simple relations of set inclusion or logical implication.

It is convenient to have the option of expressing all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or the elements of experience over which they hold true.  Let <math>C^-\!</math> be a chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances we have in mind when we refer to "past experience".  Let <math>C^+\!</math> be a collective set of experiences, or the projective total of possible circumstances.  Let <math>C\!</math> be a current experience, or the circumstances present to the reasoner.  If we think of the knowledge base <math>K\!</math> as referring to the "regime of experience" over which it is valid, then all of these sets of models can be compared by simple relations of set inclusion or logical implication.

In these terms, the "analogy of experience" proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowlege base and then deducing its applicability to a current experience.

In these terms, the "analogy of experience" proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then deducing its applicability to a current experience.

C- => C+, "Chosen events fairly sample Collective events". (Case)

 

| width="20%" | <math>C^- \Rightarrow C^+,</math>

C- => K, "Chosen events support the Knowledge regime". (Fact)

| width="60%" | "Chosen events fairly sample Collective events".

 

| width="20%" | (Case)

C+ => K, "Collective events support the Knowledge regime". (Rule)

 

| <math>C^- \Rightarrow K,</math>

C => C+, "Current events fairly sample Collective events". (Case)

| "Chosen events support the Knowledge regime".

 

| (Fact)

C => K, "Current events support the Knowledge regime". (Fact)

| <math>C^+ \Rightarrow K,</math>

| "Collective events support the Knowledge regime".

| (Rule)

| <math>C \Rightarrow C^+,</math>

| "Current events fairly sample Collective events".

| (Case)

| <math>C \Rightarrow K,</math>

| "Collective events support the Knowledge regime".

| (Fact)

=====4.3.4.3. Testing=====

=====4.3.4.3. Testing=====

If the observer looks up and does not see dark clouds, or if he runs for shelter but it does not rain, then there is fresh occasion to question the validity of his knowledge base.

If the observer looks up and does not see dark clouds, or if he runs for shelter but it does not rain, then there is fresh occasion to question the validity of his knowledge base.

====4.3.5. The Stages of Inquiry====

====4.3.5. The Stages of Inquiry====

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]

</div>

</div>

----

----

[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]

[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]