I am not interested in making a synthetic human being. Such a goal is absurd. Everyone understands that. So I want to discover the principles that would allow a computer program to react in ways that would be more like human thinking. It is not realistic to assume that the technology of sensori-robotics contains the secrets of human reasoning. When the computer program is utilizing Input data it is just that: data. This is not just an abstraction but the reality. (Or it is an human description of the reality.) There is no mysterious link between representations of sensors and the objects that are being sensed. The objects that sensors can pick up are 'ambiguous' so to speak. They can change depending on their interactions with other objects and forces, and the changing variations of the IO environment that the sensors can sense. So an object in a visual scene which is white in one lighting situation can be green in another and grey in another and invisible in a dark environment. The shadows that fall across the object can fool the algorithms that are trying to detect the object. The idea that a sensor would allow objects to be detected easily is absurd and it is not a conclusion that is drawn from familiarity with the problem. I agree that a combination of sensors would make an effective AGI program more capable in many (but not all) situations. However, without an effective AGI program the belief that adding sensors to a half-baked AGI theory might make it work has clearly been debunked by the history of AI/AGI. Jim Bromer Subject: Re: [agi] What I Was Trying to Say. From: wann...@ababian.com Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:58:42 -0500 To: a...@listbox.com
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 | 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
