AGI, The general mistake here, is that everybody is thinking that "I, ME, MYSELF" must do it. Discover physical dimensions, answer questions about vision, interactions, etc. That's not AGI, that's more of I, me, myself. The more we think, the more of that thinking we put into the machine, the farther away the machine departs from AGI. Why can't we be satisfied with a machine that can recognize "mother", as Hofstadter says. Our brains capture whatever comes from their sensors, and make sense of it. Why do we feel obligated to tell the machine anything about 3D? And when does a baby learn that she lives in 3D?
No, an AGI machine must be very simple, capable only of learning without accumulating entropy, not one that expects us to force-feed all that I, me, myself into it. Sergio -----Original Message----- From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:08 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/303/18883996-f0d58d57 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
