----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Waser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] The Picture Tree
Mike,
Now this is a nice, useful post that can be responded to . . . .
Your primary thesis seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) that the
human brain does all of it's processing visually and further that it
doesn't do it any other way.
ACTUALLY, JUST REREAD - THE PROCESSING, I SUGGEST, IS ON ALL THREE LEVELS
SIMULTANEOUSLY - AND IMAGES " involve all sensory forms not just visual" .
SO IF WHAT YOU'RE READING IS: "HE KNEED JOHN IN THE BALLS,THEN JUMPED UP
AND DOWN ON JOHN'S BALLS, AND JOHN JUST LAUGHED" YOUR BRAIN WILL PROBABLY
INVOLVE YOUR GROIN - I.E KINAESTHETIC SENSORY IMAGES - TO HELP PROCESS THAT
AND REALISE THAT THE LAST PART IS UNLIKELY.
While I can buy that visual processing might be most useful for some
things -- and is general enough that it can be contorted and used for
virtually everything -- I think that the evidence is fairly clear that the
brain does processing and reasoning in a variety of ways -- many of which
do not require anything like vision-like processing. Further, i believe
that using vision-like processing is overly complex (and failure-prone)
overkill on many simple things -- and evolution just doesn't work that
way.
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?
object name, details, latitude, longitude.
BUT HOW CAN A RANDOM, CRAZY WALK FROM TOWN TO TOWN BE SYMBOLICALLY
REPRESENTED? HOW CAN COMPARISONS OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF A FACE BE
REPRESENTED? YOU CAN'T SURELY DO THOSE THINGS FROM WITHIN ANY SYMBOLIC/
FORMULAIC REPRESENTATION - YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE FULL PICTURE FIRST. IN WHICH
CASE ANY SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION IS REDUNDANT. JUST USE THE GRAPHIC/IMAGE.
AND THERE SEEMS TO BE PLENTY OF NEUROLOGICAL EVIDENCE [JUST READING
EDELMAN] - NO? - THAT THE BRAIN MAKES EXTENSIVE USE OF MAPPING.
*homunculus - I find the fear re a homunculus weird for this reason -
every image CONTAINS the viewer
The point to the homunculus debate is that most designs have a "a
miracle happens here" section where they sweep all the inconvenient
details that they couldn't figure out under the rug (or behind the curtain
:-).
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: [agi] The Picture Tree
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: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
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/?&;
-----
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:
269.6.4/789 - Release Date: 04/05/2007 17:49
-----
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
