Richard,
My apologies for coming on too strong.
Re psychosemiotics, if there were such a science, yes, it would probably
come under cognitive psychology. Is there a need for such a science? Yes.
See my "picture theory" below. But regardless of that, there is an obvious
need to look at human sign systems and media as a totality, what they
reflect about the brain's and human system's needs to apprehend the world,
how they change the human nervous system, and how they will evolve in
future - human sign systems are manifestly continuously evolving. It should
be obvious that such a science would fit in a timely way with the new
multimedia age and the new multimedia (as opposed to literate) mentality
(but I can expand on that another time).
Re Kosslyn, etc, I presume what you are really after is: what am I
personally saying, if anything, that is different from Kosslyn etc and/or of
any interest? Well, I am saying something v. different, and if nothing
else, it serves to place the imagery debate in context.
(Thanks BTW for all the links - which I found stimulating).
What my "picture tree" theory - to put it EXTREMELY briefly - says is :
the brain continually tries to process all incoming info. on at least 3
levels of abstractness/ concreteness simultaneously - as:
*symbols - totally abstract, non-referential signs like words and numbers
*graphics - which are principally the OUTLINES of objects - exemplified by
children's drawings, icons, cartoons, maps, et
*images - which, as I use the word, are more detailed representations of
objects - exemplified by photos, realistic drawings, paintings, statues -
but also involve all sensory forms not just visual
(obviously there is a difference between the brain's internal picture tree,
with its internal symbols, graphics & images, and the external cultural
forms of them).
The brain literally tries to "make sense" of all incoming info. - the
primary object being to test the truth of all info.
So when the brain reads words, it continually tries to convert them into
graphics and images - although much or all of this last activity may be
taking place UNCONSCIOUSLY.
How does the brain know that:
"The man climbed the penny "
is nonsense? Because it will literally draw a picture in graphics of a man
trying to climb a penny - and from the graphics deduce that that is
impossible - although it will also be able to say in some instances: "well,
maybe if it were a specially built outsize penny"... and the way it will
arrive at that is by graphically drawing an outsize penny, and concluding
from both graphics and images, that that is a physical though unusual
possibility.
The brain's graphics are principally dynamic, metamorphic (flexible shape)
graphics - not so much still graphics. The brain then I am suggesting is
continually drawing composite, dynamic graphic pictures to make sense of
sentences, and, where relevant, testing them against the still more detailed
images of its actual experience. (Remember that the prime form that our
sensory images of the world take are moving "VIDEOS" not still images - you
can see why I find Hawkins interesting).
What is distinctive, and unquestionably important about this theory, is that
it introduces a new category of signs. Both semiotics and the traditional
psychological/philosophical debates divide signs into two : symbols vs icons
or images. I'm pointing out what is obvious - that "graphics" should be
treated separately, and form an important separate category of sign systems.
What's also distinctive about it is that it connects up how the brain works
with the great many different external sign systems that humans have
produced and use - there has to be value in that.
The imagery debate is v. different to all this - it's about in what form
images are laid down in the brain, and what happens when we consciously form
mental images, and imagine composite scenes and scenarios.
There is an obvious longstanding philosophical debate that forms a
background to the imagery debate, about whether symbols are grounded in
images, but it's all very general.
What I'm proposing is an overall, far more comprehensive theory of how the
brain continuously processes information - the brain's "picture tree". And
it has major consequences and applications. For example, putting this v.
simplistically, it says that those subjects which humans find most difficult
to understand and confusing, are precisely those subjects like quantum
mechanics, philosophy, or genetics which are most abstract and literally "do
not make sense" as presented - are not adequately illustrated.
The theory also has applications to AGI - if it's correct, it's saying that
the central source of human adaptivity is the use of graphics (backed by
images). It's mainly although by no means exclusively graphics that enable
the human brain to connect just about anything to anything else. (Plato said
"Let no one without geometry enter here" - I'm suggesting that "no one
without graphics" (of which geometry is only one form) can enter AGI). How
can the brain think of a virtual infinity of ways to "move" a given object?
Probably because it first draws "move" as something like a moving arrow. And
then it can metamorphically convert that arrow into, and associate it with,
an infinite variety of more detailed graphic forms of movement like
"hammer", "poke", "shovel", "nail", etc. etc. ad infinitum.
(In case you are interested, a couple of points about the imagery debate
from a brief reading:
*propositions - a still graphic may not be, but a MOVING graphic or image IS
a proposition - it says, for example, this object is moving here - the cat
is sitting on the mat - has anyone pointed this out?
*storing info - the whole nodes thing strikes me as v. unlikely; I would
argue that a graphic or image is a supremely more efficient way to store
info. - a standard map, for example, does not just contain info. say about
how four or five towns are geographically related to each other, it tells
you how every single point on that map is related to every other point - it
enables the planning of a virtual infinity of journeys - I don't see how
that info can be represented symbolically/ formulaically - do you? Ditto, an
image of a face enables you to compare every part of that face to every
other part - I don't see how all those comparisons can be contained in
symbolic form.
*homunculus - I find the fear re a homunculus weird for this reason - every
image CONTAINS the viewer - when you look at a photo of a chair or a
mountain, that photo doesn't just show you the chair, it tells you how far
you the viewer are from it, and at what angle you are looking at it - has
this point been made? (Consciousness in other words is an "itheatre" in
which every sensory image is framed by the self viewing or sensing it).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] The University of Phoenix Test [was: Why do you think
your AGI design will work?]
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard,
What's the point here? You seem to be just being cussed. You're not
really interested in the structure of the sciences, are you?
Is this ad hominem remark really necessary?
Psychosemiotics, first off, does NOT EXIST - so how cognitive science
could already cover it is interesting. It has been mooted vaguely - in a
book esp. by Howard Smith:
Okay, I'll try to phrase it as carefully as I can: what you suggest as
the subject matter of 'psychosemiotics' does not seem to differ from the
subject matter of cognitive science/psychology, because the latter already
is committed to understanding cognition in all its aspects, including the
rather small aspect of cognition that is the human use of signs ...... so
if you think there is something special about psychosemiotics that makes
it distinct from what cognitive science is already doing, please specify
this.
"psychosemiotics, defined as "the study of how we learn, understand, and
use the signs of culture" (p. 2), offers a way "to understand cognition
by examining how humans use signs to make meaning of their everchanging
physical and cultural environments" (p. 3). "
I posit a more ambitious formulation, - that it should be esp. about
how the structure of sign systems reflects the structure of the human
brain. I doubt that you're really into this area, because if you were,
you'd have noticed that the structure/ division I use (symbols/ graphics/
images) is not a recognized division. No, this whole area is still virgin
territory - if you disagree, point out the research or relevant
branch(es) of science.
All you have done so far is to declare that Semiotics should be used to
shed light on the structure of the human mind, and that this should be
called "psychosemiotics", and that this is virgin territory.
My response to you is the same as the response I would give to someone who
might claim that the human use of restaurants should be used to shed light
on the structure of the human mind, and that this should be called
"psychobistromathics", and that this is virgin territory.
I would ask: why is this different from the general use of all kinds of
human behaviors to study the mind ..... a field that is already named, and
is called cognitive science? Most people would say that it has to be a
good deal more than just a vague declaration of intent, to be a scientific
field with a new name.
(BTW Someone already did employ the human use of restaurants as a way to
shed light on the structure of the human mind, but they were never
inclined to declare it a new field of study, or promise, before they had
even started on it, that it was a virgin territory).
Vis a vis:
"There is an actual "picture tree"
in the brain" -- see above quote from you -- which is a direct,
unambiguous description of the position defended by the group associated
with Kosslyn."
- I take that more seriously, although I am v. confident of my position.
Link me to a statement of this position of "the group associated with
Kosslyn," and I will reply in detail.
Try any basic undergraduate text on cognitive science, or, if you are in a
hurry, I am sure you will be able to find a statement of their position
somewhere in these, or a thousand other places:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/Imagery
http://www.iep.utm.edu/i/imagery.htm
http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/I/imagery.html
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Foundations.Cognition/0091.html
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/pylyshyn-mehler.htm
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=7103&ttype=2
http://www.gis.net/~tbirch/mi11.htm
http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~jimmyd/summaries/kosslyn1994.html
-----
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/?&;
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 02/05/2007 14:16
-----
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
