Your last question I remember was smart - this one is, sorry, pretty mad but
of a not uncommon strain here.
You're asking : how do we make an advanced mathematician/physicist AGI, who
can theorise about dimensions etc?
Er we just need an AGI that can move around the world, and handle objects to
begin with - like an infant. No maths or physics is required.
Ben is making a similar mistake with his NLP - trying to construct a super
advanced linguist/linguistic system - when if you did want a language-using
AGI, (and you have to be mad as a hatter to even think about one at this
point), all you would need in the first instance is an infant AGI who could
acquire a few basic words to begin with, and keep learning from there.
Both of you are making the classic mistake of assuming that an AGI starts
like a narrow AI with full knowledge, whereas the whole damn point of an AGI
is that it starts with minimal knowledge and keeps learning and learning.
It's the "keeps learning and learning..." - "is creative" - part that you
should be concentrating on. Not maths and physics et al.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:08 PM
To: AGI
Subject: [agi] Discovering physical dimensions
All brain builders have to work with granularity in multiple ways,
including the question of how much "physics" should be inbuilt and how
much will have to be derived or discovered. I have previously asserted
that it is virtually a mathematical certainty that a "conditioned"
physical entity, one that is entangled with the physical world it
observes, cannot find out the true, deep laws of its universe, But
what about partial knowledge, such as the "3 dimensions". How can a
robot know in how many dimensions she is operating? Now, I am not
suggesting to including metrics from our mathematics like
http://www.wahl.org/fe/HTML_version/link/FE4W/c4.htm , even though
that would not be trivial at all either. What I am suggesting is that
the baby robot analyses inputs and outputs until it builds up a 3d
model of its world, as opposed to a 2d one or a 3.33 one.
What could the preconditions be for the discovery of 3 dimensions? A
humanoid with many actuators and Degrees of Freedom would first of all
have to experiment with its own capabilities and multidimensional
"state" (know thyself) and use vision and interaction with the world
to "conclude" that it is in a 3d world - and the earth is flat!
Gravity will be tremendously helpful in such reasoning, but could the
discovery be also made in weightless space (or simulated weightless
space). With a few rockets and a pair of "eyes" like the Mars landers,
but only distant stars to look at, can you discover the 3
dimensionality of the world?
As I have said on plenty occasions, I expect such agnostic
intelligences to develop very alien concepts that will never, ever map
to "ours" and, lets say, the Turing test. But it would be nice to
know/guess how little/much data and stimuli a system/architecture
needs to start making sense of the world. It would be hard to suggest
that there is an animal on earth that does not have genetically
determined species-wide models of the world, though I'd wager dogs and
humans operate with a 2d map, not unlike Dogville! Which again is very
different both from knowing that the world is 2d and from discovering
the world's two dimensions.
AT
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5
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/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
