!. "You seem to be taking your own personal experience of thinking and
incorrectly extending it
to everybody..."
What's at issue here is by no means how people necessarily think a)
consciously and/or b) self-aware-ly (in a way they can report later). (or by
extension my personal thinking).
No question that a lot of people do a lot of thinking to all conscious
appearances very-to-near-exclusively verbally. Hence GOFAI and text-ual
intelligence approaches.
What's at issue is how the mind (or any future real AGI mind) thinks as a
whole - incl. unconsciously.
We are not aware of most of our sensory/graphic reasoning, even when we/A.I.
can be extremely confident it's taking place, e.g. when we navigate through
a crowd, or catch balls, we are v. often not aware of sensory reasoning,
though it must be taking place.
2. These other approaches are not consistent with what I'm saying - wh. is
centrally that "fluid/soft" graphics are central to conceptual thought and
movement and reasoning generally (by contrast with the "rigid graphics" of
geometrical and algorithmic thought). I believe also that fluid/soft
graphics are not algorithmic, but are nevertheless computational/robotic and
central to AGI.
O.K. I'll give you/me a break there - but this has been a productive
exchange.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Goertzel
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:33 PM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] A General O.D. (Operational Definition) for all AGI
projects
You reckon Newton thought about apples (etc) falling to earth, and moons
"falling" round planets, by thinking about their names/words? And
proceeding
via logico-verbal inference.,?
I don't know about Newton, but Hadamard wrote a great book based on his
survey
of how various mathematicans thought in the early part of the last century
http://archive.org/details/eassayonthepsych006281mbp // free online version
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychology-Invention-Mathematical-Field/dp/0486201074
As his empirical survey makes clear, some of these folks think
verbally, some visually,
some auditorially, some more abstractly.... There is no universal
rule to the way people
experience their thoughts, it seems...
You seem to be taking your own personal experience of thinking and
incorrectly extending it
to everybody...
However, your point that *sensory* (not necessarily) visual
representations are critical
to human-like intelligence, is an important one
But please note that the most fashionable approach to AGI these days
is deep learning, which
incorporates precisely this same idea. So the idea that sensory
representations are critical
is not novel at all -- it's pretty much the new common sense in the AGI
field...
Deep Mind and Vicarious Systems, for instance, are two of the better
funded AGI projects
around, and both are vision-centric and deep learning centric...
-- Ben G
-------------------------------------------
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-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
