On 30/03/2008, Kingma, D.P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Intelligence is not *only* about the modalities of the data you get, > but modalities are certainly important. A deafblind person can still > learn a lot about the world with taste, smell, and touch, but the > senses one has access to defines the limits to the world model one can > build.
As long as you have one high bandwidth modality you should be able to add on technological gizmos to convert information to that modality, and thus be able to model the phenomenon from that part of the world. Humans manage to convert modalities E.g. http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/the-brain-port-neural-tongue-interface-of-the-future/ Using touch on the tongue. We don't do it very well, but that is mainly because we don't have to do it it very often. AIs that are designed to have new modalities added to them, using their major modality of their memory space+interrupts (or other computational modality), may be even more flexible than humans and able to adapt to to a new modality as quickly as a current computer is able to add a new device. > If I put on ear muffs and a blind fold right now, I can still reason > quite well using touch, since I have access to a world model build > using e.g. vision. If you were deafblind and paralysed since your > birth, would you have any possibility of spatial reasoning? No, maybe > except for some extremely crude genetically coded heuristics. Sure if you don't get any spatial information you won't be able to model spatially. But getting the information is different from having a dedicated modality. My point was that audiovisual is not the only way to get spatial information. It may not even be the best way for what we happen to want to do. So not to get too hung up on any specific modality when discussing intelligence. > Sure, you could argue that an intelligence purely based on text, > disconnected from the physical world, could be intelligent, but it > would have a very hard time reasoning about interaction of entities in > the physicial world. It would be unable to understand humans in many > aspects: I wouldn't call that generally intelligent. I'm not so much interested in this case, but what about the case where you have a robot with Sonar, Radar and other sensors. But not the normal 2 camera +2 microphone thing people imply when they say audiovisual. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
