I think that we're in pretty close agreement but I disagree with a few of
your particular phrases.
But note that in this case "world model" is not a model of the same world
that you have a model of.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to declare that there is an
external reality and that external reality is what I mean by the world. The
machine has it's model of that world and I have my model of that same world.
Our models are different but the external world is not.
But note that these sensory devices are just that, sensory devices that it
can use, and which can be added or removed. This yields a very different
world model than that with which people develop. One in which "reality"
adheres to the internal states and not to the externalities. The external
world will forever be a "calculation device", and consciously known to be
so. (This is unlike people where it's also a calculation device, but
where it is generally only intellectually known that the state of the
world as reported by the sensors is largely an artifact of the sensors.
[And if you doubt that, consider a visit to the dentist. With and without
anesthetic.])
So what happens when people can add and remove sensory modalities at will
(and isn't anesthesia just removing a sensor)? Do we then become machines
and lose something that we have now? Or do we gain something?
Adhering "reality" to internal states is, I believe, a slippery slope to
madness (which equals a defective/ineffective world model/way of dealing
with the world).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles D Hixson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
Mark Waser wrote:
What is "meaning" to a computer? Some people would say that no machine
can
know the meaning of text because only humans can understand language.
Nope. I am *NOT* willing to do the Searle thing. Machines will know the
meaning of text (i.e. understand it) when they have a coherent world
model that they ground their usage of text in.
...
But note that in this case "world model" is not a model of the same world
that you have a model of. The will definitely have different sensors and
different goals. E.g., they might be directly sensitive to system
"signals" and totally insensitive to kinesthetic. I.e., they might be
able to directly sense a mouse position, or an i/o port state, but lack
any intrinsic binding of those to a kinesthetic model. An optional
binding would be something else, of course, but imagine such a machine
with access to a midi-card and a mic. Is there any particular reason to
presume that it would find harmonious the same sounds that you do? (Well,
yes. Harmony is a mathematical property. Whether it would desire harmony
is less clear. See Stockhausen and John Cage.)
Now an early stage AI of this variety would not have a world model that
corresponded closely to that of a person. E.g., it's "physical world"
wouldn't really exist. The "real world" would be limited to
"non-removable senses", so nothing that was connected, say, via a USB port
would count (unless it was always both connected and on). This included
video cameras...which it could have, but wouldn't be "built-in", and would
be subject to being replaced and ending up on different "ports". And if
there were a pair of them, the direction that they were pointing would
probably be independently variable, as would the distance between them.
At a later stage it might well be given control of them, on movable arms
that it could also control, rather like a Pierson's Puppeteer. Touch is
less obvious about how to handle, but it's being worked on.
But note that these sensory devices are just that, sensory devices that it
can use, and which can be added or removed. This yields a very different
world model than that with which people develop. One in which "reality"
adheres to the internal states and not to the externalities. The external
world will forever be a "calculation device", and consciously known to be
so. (This is unlike people where it's also a calculation device, but
where it is generally only intellectually known that the state of the
world as reported by the sensors is largely an artifact of the sensors.
[And if you doubt that, consider a visit to the dentist. With and without
anesthetic.])
-----
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/?&;
-----
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
