Modeling human reasoning 4 Binding to I. Personality experience

Binding_to_It is a reaction of the IR as a person, to the received information.
I am a mediator between the interlocutor and my own database.
This is just another test, "on the need for" storage of this idea.
The idea is placed in the "virtual buffer" before it is entered into the database. Basically, due to distortion when translated from "external" into "internal" language. And because of mistrust to the interlocutor. (the interlocutor may be mistaken / not know, lie, fantasize, mock, joke, and finally just turn out to be a "moron"). Different "systems of coordinates" among the interlocutors (here you have the presence / lack of knowledge, here you have vocabulary, here you have the coefficient of intelligence and the ability to choose words for your thoughts and much more). Finally, just noise / interference / distortion from a misunderstanding of each other due to a heap of various reasons (ranging from racial to religious beliefs and mental normality).

After all the "modifications", the thought "seems to be" becomes clear, that is, it is given "in order" and "is what was transmitted." Now it is necessary to “appreciate” the need for this thought. Does she even need it? Does it have any value (priority) for me as an individual? Or is it useless and you can forget about it? Or vice versa is harmful (wrong)

So. What is the "own opinion"?
Life experience. Knowledge. Emotional experiences. Findings.

What is communication? This is an exchange of all of the above.
Consequently, on the basis of these data, we will try to consider the types of possible reactions of the individual to the information received. We classify information by type.

1. Useless information. (low coefficient of confidence in the interlocutor, respectively, the conversation is not remembered for a long time and most of the data is destroyed, the more so nothing is recorded in the "long-term memory").
2. little information. (same)
3. General (introductory) information.
4. Information on a specific topic.
5. Behavioral information (instruction).
6. Unknown information (important! Always important is that unknown. Unknown can be dangerous).
7. Clarifying information. (Boris, you're wrong!)
8. Disputes. (fix links)
9. Fixing information (I already know this, but repetition is the mother of learning, additional confidence in knowledge will not hurt)
10. Own guesses (unverified connections).
eleven. ??? (can you add?)

Hence the reaction of the individual, after classification:
1. talked, forgotten.
2. talked, forgot, but maybe some thought like it, you can remember it.
(for example, you can remember a joke, anecdote, etc.)
3. Usually just remembered, without processing, with the notes to clarify.
4. Remember.
5. Remember.
6. MUST remember! and mark the priority of processing and clarification.
7. This is for clause 3. And for clause 10.
8. FIX IMMEDIATELY! BUT! Before correction, ALL is rechecked and re-recalculated. It is always more difficult to fix than to memorize a new one, since the "wrong connection" has already managed to acquire a bunch of other "correct" connections. Accordingly, it is necessary to fix them ALL! And this is quite a lot of work and a large sample of links to be rethought and destruction (if necessary) or corrected.
9. Just correct the coefficient of "confidence".
10. Point 7 will help us out.

So “binding to the self” is simply the definition of the “coefficient of necessity” in these data and the corresponding reaction to this coefficient.
The problem is that the data received at the input of the "communicator" do not have any "coefficients". And the IR, should set these coefficients by itself "by eye";)

For chat bot, everything can be done and easier ...

What is (for example) APPLE?
1. DEFINITION.
The easiest way is to drive the definition (for the communicator) in text form (for example: explanatory dictionaries, Wikipedia, encyclopedias, etc.)
1.1 For process (HOW?) - description of the process.
2. SUBMISSION. see the diagram. on the arrow and down, where the visual organoleptic representation in the archive from the senses. For the chat bot, I think it’s quite enough ... For the IR, we will have to do a MODEL representation as well.
2.1 For the process (HOW?) In the same way - HOW the process looks? (if it is for example “hammering”, then visualization / presentation of the driving process)
3. INSTRUCTION. (if it is) This is described by the IR RESPONSE TO THE "CONCEPT".
The "concept" is nothing but an ordinary connection. Simply ISOLATED from the rest and marked with a LABEL for ease of use.
For example: "write a letter", "go to the country with barbecue", "invite the girl to the cinema", "go to a restaurant", etc.
The biggest difficulty here is the large amount of information in the instruction itself. For example, “to invite a girl to the cinema” implies a whole abyss of knowledge, behavior and behavior, depending on the reaction of the girl.
(And if he refuses? / How to achieve his goal, and if he cannot? / Transfer to another day, and if the film is not interesting? / Look for another cinema, and what AFTER the session? / Look at the situation, then a farewell kiss ... then whether "invite to drink tea" / the main thing is that I would not smoke in bed :)
Our tasks (for now) are not so global, and yet ...
When information is received, first of all, the “concept” is found and the “line of conduct” is drawn up by extracting the existing “instruction”.
At the next stage, the training stage, when a “instruction” is found in a “pure form” it is recorded in the section “instructions”.
For example: "Interrupting the interlocutor is impolite," "if they greeted you, you need to say hello in response," "you need to communicate with a stranger."
These are the most common instructions, after translating them into an "internal language", they can also be translated into the "language of instructions" and written into the necessary database cell.
In the end, the chat bot can always ask / clarify something ...
For example, ask, "how should he behave" in a given situation.
(and this is also an instruction :) If you don’t know something, ask ...

1. And so we have some information at the entrance.
Information is analyzed, meaning is highlighted based on context.
No instructions were found for the DB of instructions for using this information. Information is simply memorized. Binding_to:
- I understood you.
- Thanks, I remembered.

1.1 Same as in p1. but the information is already known:
- Yes, I already know that.
“I already know that.”
- You did not tell me anything new.

2. We have some information at the entrance.
Information is analyzed, meaning is highlighted based on context.
No instructions were found for the DB of instructions for using this information. But information is recognized as FALSE, contrary to the information that is already in memory. Moreover, the coefficient of “authenticity” of the source is higher than that of the interlocutor. What to do in this case? After all, the reaction to a lie can be different. From the frank "send a liar away," to "and maybe he is right, but I'm just not properly informed?". I leave this issue to you :)
IMHO I would use the "priority controller" (how important is this question?)
and General Emotional State (ECO) as a “referral” for further discussion.
(accordingly - for different ECO, the basic "lines of conduct" - "instructions" should already be laid)
2.1 For IR, things are much more complicated, since lies and “distortion of truth”, fiction and fantasy, all these “concepts” simply do not have clear boundaries between themselves.
And for the implementation of "everyday logic", the IR must not only be able to "recognize a lie" but also "be able to lie." It is a lie, because it is just a “deliberate” distortion of one / several links inside the database, in order to obtain the “necessary result” (as “lines of conduct” in “unusual situations”)

3. Information received and cannot be interpreted. What to do in this case? Maybe this: qwerty, or maybe the text in English, or maybe just an unknown section of knowledge (for example, chemistry / physics, mathematical formulas, etc.)
How to proceed?

In general, something in this spirit ...
In any case, in the beginning it is necessary to do something simpler, but leave the possibility "for increasing the database" in the future.