I'm with Mike on this one. But to be a bit more constructive, I wouldn't say it's simply a matter of a movie, though it certainly depends on physicality. Both sensory and motor. Also, I would put a greater emphasis on the role of metaphor in understanding. I'm a fan of Hofstadter work, and would recommend his new book. Still, there are many pieces left. And I hate to agree in a negative way like this, but I'm afraid even our beloved list founder Ben really seems to be missing a few key points, as well. His intuition seems to be flawed on some of them. andi
Can I help? On May 10, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "Mike Tintner" <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > You haven’t the foggiest what you’re talking about – you’re just playing (as > I more or less indicated you would) desperate logic games. Your examples are > totally hypothetical – and false. > > Here is an *actual* not a hypothetical trompe l’oeil. Please explain what on > earth words or symbols have to do with understanding it – or try and explain > how any non-visual, non-sensory processing is involved. > > http://www.meridian.net.au/Art/Artists/MCEscher/Gallery/Images/escher-relativity-lithograph-medium.jpg > > Note I can describe it in words: > > ESCHER’S PICTURE SHOWS HUMANS IMPOSSIBLY GOING UP AND DOWN DIFFERENT SIDES OF > A STAIRCASE – AND STAIRCASES CONNECTING ALTHOUGH ON TOTALLY DIFFERENT > DIMENSIONAL LEVELS . > > Do you think my brain produced those words by consulting semantic networks? > Please explain how – or be honest, think of your God, and acknowledge that > you don’t have the slightest clue how the brain can produce those words. > > And here are some actual not hypothetical visual ambiguities: > > http://brainden.com/images/optical-illusions.gif > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg > > Please explain how the brain can recognize these ambiguities by other than > visual/sensory means. > > Or how the brain can understand a verbal description - A DUCK CAN LOOK LIKE > A RABBIT BACK TO FRONT – by consulting only words/symbols. > > I would suggest that the obvious way the brain is able to recognize that > these are ambiguous pictures is by seeing that the same picture can be > physically fitted to fit two very different prototypical figures. – the same > drawing outlines/figure can be fitted to the figures of both a duck and a > rabbit, a young girl and an old woman. > > The brain is physically manipulating and moving around figures, not > superfluous words. > > And more of this another time – but that – “figurative thought – the capacity > to physically, endlessly reconfigure the figures of objects, both > individually and jointly - is the basis of language and the basis of AGI. > > What is totally non-AGI is “mere words” – no matter how many logic games you > play. > > > > From: Jim Bromer > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:15 PM > To: AGI > Subject: RE: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say. > > Suppose that a box was cleverly carved so that it looked like it had a towel > draped over it. A visual based AGI program would be unable to detect the > difference without some kind of additional action to help it discover the > trompe l'oeil. > > And suppose that a word was used to refer to different things. A visual > based AGI program would have the same kinds of problems understanding that as > a word-based AGI would have unless some kind of education to point out that > the word was being used in different ways was available to it. > > An AGI program has to be able to effectively utilize education. It has to be > able to meaningfully convert instruction into workable knowledge. The > distinction between procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge for a > person is not that distinct except when looked at in detail. (The decision > to call certain mental events "procedural" would be somewhat arbitrary.) > > The ability to be educated is one of the hallmarks of intelligence. It > should not be disregarded. And this can be achieved in text-based AGI. It is > just a matter of when it is done. Watson may have been long overdue but it > was a major milestone in AI/AGI. > > Jim Bromer > > From: tint...@blueyonder.co.uk > To: a...@listbox.com > Subject: Re: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say. > Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:59:02 +0100 > > I’ll gladly put $1000 (or considerably more) down now publicly that neither > your nor any other word-based “so-called AGI” prog will generate a single > thing in 1/2/5 years – generativity, I think we can agree, being a test of > AGI. > > > > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
