Danko, Although the way you talk about your argument may be a bit unique the theory that it might be necessary to combine sensors and robotics to achieve AGI is not. I happen to think the theory is wrong. The data that is coming into the computer and going out of the computer is electronic. The problem is complexity. As an AI program attains more knowledge (like narrow knowledge) then the complexity of the potential number of ways that the knowledge can be combined is going to grow combinatorially. Or else the program has to find some way to combine the elements of narrow knowledge in a way which fudges them together efficiently but that will makes it lossy. (That process might work one day but I still would not think it is the best way to go about it.) An AI program has to interact with the data environment in some way. That stands as an essential part of the definition of AI. But a computer only interacts with a data environment. Of course a human brain is only interacting with 'its' sensory 'data' environment.(The human brain is also interacting with the blood and so on, but those other biological interactions do not seem as if they can explain 'understanding' of the greater world. Jim Bromer
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Danko Nikolic <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > It may be of interest to those who refute Searle that there is actually a > solution being proposed that supposedly makes both sides happy: It should > make Searle happy because a form of AI approach is proposed that does not > rely solely on computation in a box; and it should make AI engineers happy > because it is an alternative, completely feasible, approach to building AI > -- something that Searle never offered. > > In other words, Searle just said "computation is not good enough", but did > not suggest what would be good enough. Instead, he just said "we don't know > enough about the brain and consciousness". > > The proposed solution still uses computers but also there is a need for > additional "hardware" in order for the whole thing to work. Let me clarify > the nature of that solution in the terms of Searle's heart pump example. > Searle tells us that it is not enough to simulate a heart pump on a > computer. A simulation cannot actually pump blood. We have to build a > machine that pumps blood. Only then we have a replication, and not just a > simulation. > > Note that it would be ok to have a computer as a part of that machine (for > example for controlling the intensity of pumping, watching the battery, > etc.). But the actual pumping occurs outside the computer. As a result, the > whole thing (computer + pump) becomes not a simulation any longer but a > replication. > > Similarly, in terms of intelligence capable of producing strong-AI, as the > proposal goes, we have to couple computers to the outside world using > sensors and effectors. If this coupling is made in a proper way, the > resulting "thought" does not occur in the computer any more, but occurs as > combination of the computer and the rest of the machinery. As a result, we > have a replication, not a simulation. > > The coupling has to make such that a thought process (i.e., perception, > decision, etc.) never solely relies on a computer, but that the thought > occurs through stages that involve iterative interactions with the > environment (computer computes something, then environment gives feedback, > then computers does something again, etc.). This means that simply hooking > up a deep learning network to a camera and a robotic arm would not do the > job. This could still not satisfy the requirements because deep learning > network would still compute all of the stages of processing "in the box". > > It is also argued that this approach creates a much smarter AI than an AI > based solely "in the computational box". > > I provide here an introduction to this novel approach to strong-AI: > > http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/nikolic20160108 > > I would very much appreciate feedback, opinions and critique (it is all > welcome). > > Danko > > > > On 21/01/16 03:26, Jim Bromer wrote: >> >> I was disappointed by Searle's refusal to budge from the foundation of >> his historical view. I want to go back and listen to his responses to >> Kurzweil's comments because I stopped listening shortly after he >> started to respond. >> >> I disagree with the view point that the mind is a semantic processor >> in the way Searle was arguing against computational theories of mind. >> As a Christian I have no problem with the idea that there is a lot >> that we do not understand about conscious experience and I think that >> the explanations of how consciousness works may require theories about >> matter (and energy) that are unimaginable to us now. However, the idea >> that the basis of natural intelligence is not a syntactic >> computational device (of some sort) is too far out there for me. I >> also noticed that his distinction between epistemological knowledge >> and ontological knowledge is excessive. I think it is very useful to >> make that kind of distinction and I mean that it is very important to >> be able to think about that. But on the other hand the idea that >> epistemological knowledge cannot be used to encode ontological >> knowledge is so far removed from commonsense that I have to reject the >> idea that there is some kind of absolute distinction. >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, EdFromNH . <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Jim Bromer, >>> >>> I only listened to about 15 minutes a the start of the video (it seemed >>> similar to previous speeches I have heard from him), and skipped ahead to >>> hear Kurzweil questioning him about 40 minutes in, and then quit after >>> hearing his response to Ray. >>> >>> One of Searle's main mistakes is his claim that digital computers are >>> syntactical, that humans think largely semantically (which I agree with), >>> and that syntactical computation can never compute semantics (which I >>> disagree with). One of the major philosophical advancements in >>> understanding cognitive computing is that through grounding with massive >>> experientially connected experiential data syntax can, in fact, compute >>> semantics. The advances being made in deep learning strongly support >>> this. >>> For example, deep learning indicates the visual meaning of a concept such >>> as >>> "cat", with all of its rich possible visual variations can be understood >>> by >>> what Searle calls a syntactical system. If deep learning systems for >>> vision >>> were connected with deep learning systems for hearing, touch, emotions, >>> goals, behaviors, etc, the combined system would have even a much richer >>> understanding of the meaning of a word such as "cat". >>> >>> So Searle's thinking is deeply flawed. But Searle's notion that >>> consciousness requires computation having qualities shared by biological >>> brains that are not shared by current computers, even current deep >>> learning >>> systems, is not clearly wrong. >>> >>> Ed Porter >>> >>> P.S. Jim, If you get this message. please given me a brief ping to say >>> you >>> have. For the last several months all of my posts to [email protected] >>> have >>> been returned with an error message. I have emailed Ben directly to ask >>> what the problem is and he has not responded. I am trying to determine >>> if I >>> have been ejected from this list because I dared to ask to publicly >>> debate >>> with Ben about his dismissal of my Computational Awarenes Theory of >>> Consciousness, or if there is some technical error. >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> John Searle: "Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence" | Talks at >>>> Google. >>>> I just started listening to it, but it is interesting. He starts with >>>> epistemic objectivity and ontological subjectivity (but promises to >>>> avoid using too many polysyllabic words.) >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg >>>> Jim Bromer >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> AGI >>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>>> RSS Feed: >>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/8630185-a57a74e1 >>>> 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/303/27953441-c5c84d1c >> 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/303/24379807-653794b5 > 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
