One other thing. I recalled that the word algorithm has a more precise definition in mathematics. However, there is no way that the traditional definition from the formalization of mathematics from the twentieth century, which was modified from it's initial uses, is a serious limitation on what we are talking about in these discussions about AGI. So if you accept the idea that a computer program or subprogram can be called an algorithm then the narrow definition that it is a method that is -only- used to calculate a -formally defined mathematical function- does not hold.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > The mapping schema metaphor was derived from mapping of course. However, > when we talk about mapping as it relates to AGI computer technology or a > theory of mind we are not talking about something that has never been > observed in biology (which was the authoritative source of the inspiration > you mentioned before you equivocated and referred to cog. embodied sci. as > your source of inspiration.) Mapping is a group of computational methods > which have been applied to the philosophy of mind (as in the blending > metaphor where you might imagine two images being blended together.) The > fluidity metaphor is something that you picked up from Hofstadter if I > remember correctly (although I have seen references to fluid transitions > in software before he mentioned them), and Hofstadter was probably thinking > about using something like "mapping" to achieve or use fluid > representations. > > Mike, you said in your last message, > "The other aspect of schemas that is vital is that they are fluid,loose > outlines – and not just outlines of objects, but of actions and potential > courses of actions – and therefore a fundamental contradiction and > challenge to the idea of algorithmic, precisely first-to-last-step > preplanned courses of action. *However* I doubt that anyone in the field > has really thought this through..." > Contrary to your belief, many people in the field have put a lot of > thought into these ideas which you have mentioned. The fact that the > theory has not been made to work in the way you think it would work does > not mean that no one has thought it through. > > Just yesterday I tried to explain to you , "Just because a computer > program is "programmed" ahead of time, it does not mean that the program > cannot -ever- act as if it was being modified by the experiences it dealt > with through its Input-Output modalities." And yet, even after I went to > the trouble to try to explicitly explain this to you (yet again), you > still reasserted your naive first impression that, algorithms > are,"precisely first-to-last-step preplanned courses of action." > Can't you understand that the people who have spent a lot of time working > on computer programs might not respect you for repeating this sort of > misconception over and over even after someone has tried to repeatedly > explain it to you? > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The idea of mapping schemas onto each other is v. fundamental to the >> general image schema approach to cognition and action of cog. embodied >> sci. This is esp. evident in the whole idea of metaphors wh. is of extreme >> (and IMO somewhat excessive) importance to the field. Computers as we have >> much discussed aren’t yet capable of holistic mapping – though I think a >> way round can be found for robots. >> >> The other aspect of schemas that is vital is that they are fluid,loose >> outlines – and not just outlines of objects, but of actions and potential >> courses of actions – and therefore a fundamental contradiction and >> challenge to the idea of algorithmic, precisely first-to-last-step >> preplanned courses of action. *However* I doubt that anyone in the field >> has really thought this through – or they wouldn’t be so attracted to >> computational instantiations.. I welcome comments from all here. >> >> >> >> *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:43 AM >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Image schemas control all forms of action [Lakoff >> replies] >> >> Mike said: >> My impression is that these attempts are always misguided ... – for they >> do IMO “betray” or certainly distort the guiding image schema inspiration – >> and the idea of mapping schemas onto each other. (I’d like to discuss this >> with him/them – and may use your reply as an opportunity). >> >> Do you mean that the idea of mapping schema onto each other is a >> distortion of "the guiding image schema inspiration," or do you mean that >> the idea of mapping schema onto each other is a part of the inspiration? >> Because the "mapping" of schema onto each other is a mapping of a >> computational idea onto a hypothesis about the biological process of mind, >> whereas the guiding inspiration of using image is more of a process derived >> from physical neural biology. >> Jim Bromer >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Mike Tintner >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Ben, >>> >>> Did you read it in the proper order, so to speak (hard to do from the >>> layout)? i.e. starting with *my* post and his reply? >>> >>> I don’t think there’s any doubt that he is replying to, and confirming >>> my position – wh. is a general point about how the brain works, and how >>> image schemas inform and control many different kinds of action, incl. >>> cognition and representation. >>> >>> It’s true that at almost every point, Lakoff and his many >>> followers/colleagues seek to find computational instantiations of their >>> ideas. >>> >>> My impression is that these attempts are always misguided – and invite >>> the kind of response you have made, – for they do IMO “betray” or certainly >>> distort the guiding image schema inspiration – and the idea of mapping >>> schemas onto each other. (I’d like to discuss this with him/them – and may >>> use your reply as an opportunity). >>> >>> But I don’t think there can be any doubt that Lakoff & co do see image >>> schemas as central as I have outlined (and don’t see them as mathematical) >>> – and that while they may seek to be computational, their primary loyalty >>> is to the biological and science. >>> >>> *From:* Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 11:54 PM >>> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* AGI <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Image schemas control all forms of action [Lakoff >>> replies] >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> Lakoff's reply to you is not about "image schema" but rather about >>> "process schema" , specifically naranyan's x-schema >>> * >>> * >>> *naranyan's *x-*schema* are "a graph-based, token-passing formalism >>> based on stochastic Petri nets" >>> >>> >>> http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~snarayan/CFN-NCPW04.pdf >>> >>> These x-schema are an abstract mathematical formalism, and not >>> intrinsically "imagistic" >>> >>> Naranyan uses x-schema as a bridge btw language, action, perception and >>> reasoning -- much as opencog uses its atomspace model in this role >>> >>> Ben G >>> >>> -- >>> Ben Goertzel >>> http://goertzel.org >>> ### Sent from my mobile; plz forgive any typos or excessive concision ... >>> >>> On 24 Jul, 2012, at 5:17 AM, "Mike Tintner" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* George Lakoff <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 10:11 PM >>> *To:* Mike Tintner <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Cogling-L] The scope of image schemas >>> >>> Narayanan's X-schemas (or process schemas) characterize all events and >>> actions and actually control physical actions. So you're right about that. >>> We are now working on entity schemas, but we're not there yet. >>> >>> George >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Lakoff:The idea behind image metaphors is simple. Images are structured >>>> by image >>>> schemas. A given image has multiple image schemas linked via neural >>>> binding >>>> to form a composite image schema ? or more than one. Metaphors map one >>>> image to another by mapping the source image schemas to the identical >>>> image >>>> schemas in the target >>>> >>>> George, >>>> >>>> Your exposition was v. useful. Can you/should you not extend the scope >>>> of image schemas? They structure presumably under >>>> >>>> *Images* : both >>>> >>>> *Verbal Images* & >>>> *Graphic/Photographic/Sensory Images*. >>>> >>>> and not just word images but : >>>> >>>> *Words/Language/Concepts" - period; *all words* are structured by image >>>> schemas, no? >>>> >>>> And from that one can one go on to argue - no? - that they structure >>>> >>>> *Moves/Movement* - period - that, for example, our reaching for a cup >>>> is structured by a schema. >>>> >>>> After all, language is used principally to structure actions: "Hand me >>>> that cup" - "Go to the other room". It makes sense that image schemas >>>> should structure not just verbally-mediated action, but all action, however >>>> mediated. The same mirror neurons that respond to (image-schema-structured) >>>> verbal accounts of action, also respond when just watching direct sensory >>>> images of agents executing those actions. >>>> >>>> Concepts/schemas arguably structure all the actions of living creatures. >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> P.S. Personally, I think it's helpful to think of image schemas as >>>> "[loose] outlines" - esp. in connection with actions. Comments? >>>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
