Mike, As I said before, you give "symbol" a very narrow meaning, and insist that it is the only way to use it. In the current discussion, "symbols" are not 'X', 'Y', 'Z', but 'table', 'time', 'intelligence'. BTW, what images you associate with the latter two?
Since you prefer to use person as example, let me try the same. All of my experience about 'Mike Tintner' is symbolic, nothing visual, but it still makes you real enough to me, and I've got more information about you than a photo of you can provide. For instance, this experience tells me that to argue this issue with you will very likely be a waste of time, which is something that no photo can teach me. I still cannot pick you out in a lineup, but it doesn't mean your name is meaningless to me. I'm sorry if it sounds rude --- I rarely talk to people in this tone, but you are exceptional, in my experience of personal communication. Again, the meaning of your name, in my mind, is not the person it refers, but its relations with other concepts in my experience, this experience can either be visual, verbal, or something else. Pei On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pei:"it is important to understand > that both linguistic experience and non-linguistic experience are both > special > cases of experience, and the latter is not more "real" than the former. In > the previous > discussions, many people implicitly suppose that linguistic experience is > nothing but > "Dictionary-Go-Round" [Harnad, 1990], and only non-linguistic experience can > give > symbols meaning. This is a misconception coming from traditional semantics, > which > determines meaning by referred object, so that an image of the object seems > to be closer > to the "real thing" than a verbal description [Wang, 2007]." > > 1. Of course the image is more real than the symbol or word. > > Simple test of what should be obvious: a) use any amount of symbols you > like, incl. Narsese, to describe "Pei Wang." Give your description to any > intelligence, human or AI, and see if it can pick out Pei in a lineup of > similar men. > > b) give the same intelligence a photo of Pei - & apply the same test. > > Guess which method will win. > > Only images can represent *INDIVIDUAL objects* - incl Pei/Ben or this > keyboard on my desk. And in the final analysis, only indvidual objects *are* > real. There are no "chairs" or "oranges" for example - those general > concepts are, in the final analysis, useful fictions. There is only this > chair here and that chair over there. And if you want to refer to them, > individually, - so that you communicate successfully with another > person/intelligence - you have no choice but to use images, (flat or solid). > > 2. Symbols are abstract - they can't refer to anything unless you already > know, via images, what they refer to. If you think not, please draw a > "cheggnut"....Again, if I give you an image of a cheggnut, you will have no > problem. > > 3. You talk of a misconception of semantics, but give no reason why it is > such, merely state it is. > > 4. You leave out the most important thing of all - you argue that experience > is composed of symbols and images. And...? Hey, there's also the real > thing(s). The real objects that they refer to. You certainly can't do > science without looking at the real objects. And science is only a > systematic version of all intelligence. That's how every functioning > general intelligence is able to be intelligent about the world - by being > "grounded" in the real world, composed of real objects. which it can go out > and touch, walk round, look at and interact with. A box like Nars can't do > that, can it? > > "Do you realise what you're saying, Pei?" To understand statements is to > *realise* what they mean - what they refer to - to know that they refer to > real objects, which you can really go and interact with and test - and to > try (or have your brain try automatically) to connect those statements to > real objects. > > When you or I are given words or images, "find this man [Pei]", or "cook a > Chinese meal tonight", we know that those signs must be tested in the real > world and are only valid if so tested. We know that it's possible that that > man over there who looks v. like the photo may not actually be Pei, or that > Pei may have left the country and be impossible to find. We know that it may > be impossible to cook such a meal, because there's no such food around. - > And all such tests can only be conducted in the real world (and not say by > going and looking at other texts or photos - living in a Web world). > > Your concept of AI is not so much "un-grounded" as "unreal." > > 5. Why on earth do you think that evolution shows us general intelligences > very successfully dealing with the problems of the world for over a billion > years *without* any formal symbols? Why do infants take time to acquire > l;anguage and are therefore able to survive without it? > > The conception of AI that you are advancing is the equivalent of Creationism > - it both lacks and denies an evolutionary perspective on intelligence - a > (correctly) cardinal sin in modern science.. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
