Mike, On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> You’ve raised a very fascinating point. > > Again the v "*broad* direction of the answer is obvious – although again > putting it into practice is no doubt extremely complicated. > > You’ve clearly stated an assumption: the *neurons* must figure out how to > align the body etc. – by themselves. > > WHY?!!!!! > No, each one just figures out a tiny part and passes it on without any idea what it will be used for. > > You’ve taken a complex global system and decided that a single, local > part, or set of parts, is causal – the neurons/brain. > > WHY? > No. However, if our goal is to design intelligent computing systems, the brain seems to be a good place to concentrate our effort on, as there is presently no science of the real world other than physics. > > Think globally, systemically. > Think emergent properties rather than globally. > > To align your hand with a line, let’s say on a page in front of you – your > head, eyes, body and hand have to be in a certain fluid relationship – > while simultaneously being fluidly directed by the brain/the neurons. > > ALL OF THEM have to fit together – be aligned. The neurons can’t do it by > themselves. > But they must do their part - whatever THAT might be. > > What you’re arguing – v. crudely, off the top of my head – is: how can the > engine drive/direct the car? It can’t! – not by itself. It needs a driver. > That’s a *mechanical* necessity. > Sure, so let's concentrate on what it takes to drive a car, and set aside for the time being what powers it. > > Note, of course, that the body is extraordinarily sophisticated and, in > order to know whether it can touch a line, can merely *simulate* touching > the line *without* actually moving the relevant limbs - but it has to > *start* moving the limbs. > Why? > > I’ll leave it there for the moment – but in this as ultimately all > perceptual/intellectual areas, it simply isn’t possible to think and solve > problems without a body. > Probably correct, but if you don't figure out how our brain accomplishes this task, then you will never accomplish anything at all. > Standalone-computer-AGI-ers are suffering from the most absurd illusions. > No argument there. Steve ============ > *From:* Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:35 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] I just bought a GP-6 analog computer... > > Mike, > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Steve: The BIG question is just how such a "link" might work. >> >> The answer is *broadly* clear. Reduce the shapes to outlines and then >> align your body with those outlines. That’s how you are able to understand >> what is going on here & here: >> >> http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/silly_walks_small.jpg >> > > You missed the problem. You have observed what seems to be happening (for > which there is NO reason to believe because of the issues surrounding > understanding nearly perfect systems), but the challenge is to figure out > how little individual neurons that can NOT see an entire picture, or even a > significant fraction of a picture, could ever function together to figure > out what to do, let along actually do such things WITHOUT ANY CENTRAL > GUIDANCE other than the miniscule fraction of the "data" (image) that each > of them can "see", and the communications between them. > > *Story:* I was once on a 76 foot yacht that was performing a delicate U > turn after fueling up in the San Diego marina where they only had a 100 > foot wide path in which to do it, when the yacht suddenly went out of > control, lurched forward, and rammed another yacht. Everyone else ran > forward to see what was happening, while I ran to the engine room, put on > some hearing protectors because the noise there was deafening, and studied > the situation. I saw a control bar thrashing back and forth, probably > because of someone topside jerking on the control. I followed it to the > transmission, and saw that the linkage was broken, leaving the transmission > permanently in forward. Having NO portholes to see what was happening, and > having NO communication with anyone else, and no one else even realizing > that I was there, I flipped the transmission into neutral, but the bar kept > jerking, so with some trepidation I flipped it into reverse. The jerking > momentarily stopped, but soon started up again, so I shifted it to neutral, > the jerking continued so I shifted it into drive and the jerking stopped. > For the next few minutes this continued for several more cycles back and > forth between forward and reverse until the engine stopped. I went topside > and saw that the boat was already tied to the dock and people were saying > that I had missed all of the excitement, when the REAL excitement was > shifting a large yacht back and forth between gears in a tight marina, with > absolutely NO idea what was happening outside of the engine room. > > Here, I think I was doing something like what neurons do - seeing a job > that really needs doing, and doing it, without ANY knowledge of how my > actions fit into a larger picture, like navigating the tight San Diego > marina, recognizing things in visual scenes, etc. > > BTW, due to incredibly quick thinking on the part of the captain, all of > the damage was confined to the anchors on the two boats - less than $1,000 > total, which is pretty damn good for an out-of-control collision between > two big yachts. > > Steve > >> >> >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Matissedance.jpg/300px-Matissedance.jpg >> >> I say “broad* answer because I appreciate it’s technically more >> complicated than it looks. But clearly also any real world agent/ higher >> animal has to be able to do this. >> >> And because we are embodied, we can understand that the lines we procss >> are fluid, not geometrical. For example, if s.o. points in the direction >> you must walk or handle some object, we understand that their line of >> pointing does not have to be taken literally/mathematically but fluidly – >> that “we have [literally] a great deal of latitude in interpreting their >> direction” line – many degrees either side, and many degrees of >> fluidity/rigidity. >> >> > *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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
