On 4/30/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it is in the human brain. Every concept must be a tree, which can continually be added to and fundamentally altered. Every symbolic concept must be grounded in a set of graphics and images, which are provisional and can continually be redrawn.
That plastic template, as with all concepts, is permanently open to revision. Probably, all the visualisations of house that your brain produces
And that is how we learn language - and indeed all our knowledge about the world - provisionally. Everyone's personal history of learning is a history of continually having ascribed meanings corrected.
graphics, image, redrawn, visualizations - all indicative of a high degree of visual-spatial thinking. I'm curious, are your own AGI efforts are modelled on this mode of thought? I ask because I wonder if the machine intelligence we build will "envision" concepts in an analogous way to our own processes. If we (humans) currently visualize because that part of our brain evolved the largest bandwidth and working set out of necessity for survival, what pressure would facilitate that evolution in the machine we build? (or is it by design that we model the machine after our own thought process) </tangent> Is the notion of a 'template' too fixed even in plastic? Though it requires a lot of computation, I imagine the probability would need to be calculated in real-time at each point in context. If the root node of the 'house' tree were evaluated for a realtor it would weight the leaves associated with structural information and property value more highly than if the 'house' concept were evaluated as a sibling idea to 'home.' Essentially every fact needs a confidence metric to determine how well it relates to the current scope of investigation. In the case of double and triple entendre, we humans (sometimes) delight in the unexpected relation across different contexts by way of a particular word's multiple potential meanings. Everyone's personal history of relationships between ideas is what makes each of us unique. In the elephant/chair scenario, my own childhood of watch cartoons prevailed in visualizing a context where an elephant in a chair was not a physics problem. If an AGI is raised/trained on cartoons, it will probably develop a wildly different perspective of subjective reality than if it trained in a military application. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
