Dear indefinate article, Agreed, a "human-like" reasoning system -- that is one that has associations for concepts similar to a human -- requires human-like grounding. I have said exactly that for years.
Edward W. Porter Porter & Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: a [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S. I think that building a "human-like" reasoning system without /visual/ perception is theoretically possible, but not feasible in practice. But how is it "human like" without vision? Communication problems will arise. Concepts cannot be grounded without vision. It is impossible to completely "understand" natural language without vision. Our visual perception acts like a disambiguator for natural language. To build a human-like computer algebra system that can prove its own theorems and find interesting conjectures requires vision to perform complex symbolic manipulation. A big part of mathematics is about aesthetics. It needs vision to judge which expressions are interesting, which are the simplified ones. Finding interesting theorems, such as the "power rule", the "chain rule" in calculus requires vision to judge that the rules are simple and visually appealing enough to be communicated or published. I think that computer programming is similar. It requires vision to program easily. It requires vision to remember the locations of the symbols in the language. Visual perception and visual grounding is nothing except the basic motion detection, pattern matching parts of similar images etc. Vision /is/ a reasoning system. IMO, we already /have /AGI--that is, NARS. AGI is just not adapted to visual reasoning. You cannot improve "symbolic" reasoning further without other sensory perception. Edward W. Porter wrote: > > Validimir and Mike, > > For humans, much of our experience is grounded on sensory information, > and thus much of our understanding is based on experiences and > analogies derived largely from the physical world. So Mike you are > right that for us humans, much of our thinking is based on recasting > of experiences of the physical world. > > But just because experience of the physical world is at the center of > much of human thinking, does not mean it must be at the center of all > possible AGI thinking -- any more than the fact that for millions of > years the earth and the view from it was at the center of our thinking > and that of our ancestors means the earth and the view from it must > forever be at the center of the thinking of all intelligences > throughout the universe. > > In fact, one can argue that for us humans, one of our most important > sources of grounding emotion -- is not really about the physical > world (at least directly), but rather about our own internal state. > Furthermore, multiple AGI projects, including Novamente and Joshua > Blue are trying to ground their systems from experience in virtual > words. Yes those virtual worlds try to simulate physical reality, but > the fact remains that much of the grounding is coming from bits and > bytes, and not from anything more physical. > > Take Doug Lenats AM and create a much more powerful AGI equivalent of > it, one with much more powerful learning algorithms (such as those in > Novamente), running on the equivalent of a current 128K processor > BlueGene L with 16TBytes of RAM, but with a cross sectional bandwidth > roughly 500 times that of the current BlueGene L (the type of hardware > that could be profitably sold for well under 1 million dollars in 7 > years if there were are thriving market for making hardware to support > AGI). > > Assume the system creates programs, mathematical structures, and > transformations, etc. and in its own memory. It starts out learning > like a little kid, constantly performing little experiments, except > the experiments -- instead of being things like banging spoons against > a glass -- would be running programs that create data structures and > then observing what is created (it would have built in primitives for > observing its own workspace), changing the program and observing the > change, etc. Assume it receives no input from the physical world, but > that it has goals and a reward system related to learning about > programming, finding important mathematical and programming > generalities, finding compact representations and transformation, > creating and finding patterns in complexity, and things like that. > Over time such a system would develop its own type of grounding, one > derived from years of experience -- and from billions of trillions of > machine opps -- in programming and math space. > > Thus, I think you are both right. Mike is right that for humans, > sensory experience is a vital part of much of our ability to > understand, even of our ability to understand things that might seem > totally abstract. But Validmir is right for believing that it should > be possible to build an AGI that was well grounded in its own domain, > without any knowledge of the physical world (other than as the > manifesting of bits and bytes). > > > Edward W. Porter > Porter & Associates > 24 String Bridge S12 > Exeter, NH 03833 > (617) 494-1722 > Fax (617) 494-1822 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tintner [_mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S. > > > Vladimir, > > I'm not trying to be difficult or critical but I literally can't > understand > what you're saying, because you haven't given any example of a problem, > where "knowledge of concepts' relations and implications" somehow > supersedes > or is independent of physical casting/ recasting. > > Your analogy though of what I might be saying about maths (or other > symbols) > is wrong. Numbers and arithmetic are based on and derive from physical > objects and our ability to add and subtract objects etc . Geometry is > obviously based on an analysis of physical objects and shapes. They are > totally physically object-based and can only be understood as such. To > point > this out is not at all the same as suggesting that their figures are > composed of ink. I am talking about what their figures (and other symbols > like language) refer to, not what they are composed of. (Even a > mathematical concept BTW like "infinity" only became acceptable in maths > about the time of the printing press - when it became possible > physically/ > realistically for the first time to imagine objects being produced ad > infinitum). > > And I would suggest that our ability to perceive the kinds of concept > relations you may be thinking of is very much physically based and > "digital" - IOW based on pointing with our digits to different objects > in a scene (even if only in our mind's eye) - to explain, for example, > by pointing to how "this moves that" and classify by pointing out that > "he is > the parent of her" etc. > > Your ink analogy BTW is also, very much I suggest, a physically based > and technically fascinating operation. How do you think you arrived at > it - other than physically and spatially? Do you think you could > arrive at such an analogy simply by comparing sets of symbolic > properties of scientific problems and their physical recasting , on > the one hand, and symbolic properties of numbers and ink on the other? > > (Such an analogy is where the Fauconnier-style analysis of "conceptual > blending" of "mental spaces" comes into its own. How the brain > achieves an analogy as complex as your ink one is still something > quite awesome and problematic, even with Fauconnier's help - and still > way beyond computers, I > suggest). > > Vladimirwrote: > > >> Vladimir, > >> > >> No I'm sure the problem-solving isn't all down to recasting in > >> terms of physical models. But can you think of a scientific problem > >> area, where such recasting isn't involved? > > > > I just tried to provide my reason for considering it a mirage: even > > if problem-solving doesn't involve physical reasoning, it can be > > introspectively recast as sequence of spatial representations. > > Domain-specific concepts involved in problem-solving can easily be > > placed on spatially arranged schemata, but reasoning is correctly > > carried out because of knowledge of these concepts' relations and > > implications, not simply because of spatial setting in which they > > are arranged. It's equivalent to calling mathematics ink-reasoning > > because it's historically performed with help of remarks made by ink > > on paper and any result can be written down by ink on paper. > > > >> > >> (Very tangentially, what comes to my mind is chess. I'm confident > >> that human > >> problemsolving here - and the ability to search through only scores as > >> opposed to billions of chessboard scenarios to arrive at moves - > >> depends > >> on physical models, and is an ahem graphic illustration of the very > >> different ways in which current computers and a true general > intelligence > >> think). > >> > >> Vladimir: These 'recastings' of problems are essentially inference > >> steps, where > >> > each step is evident and is performed by trained expert's > >> > intuition. Sequence of such simple steps can constitute complex > >> > inference which leads to solution of complex problem. This > >> > recasting isn't necessarily related to physical common sense, > >> > even though each intermediate representation can be represented > >> > as spatially-temporal construction by virtue of being > >> > representable by frame graphs evolving over time, which does not > >> > reflect the rules of this evolution (which are the essence of > >> > inference which is being performed). > >> > > >> > On 10/11/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Just to underline my point about the common sense foundations of > >> >> logic and general intelligence - I came across this from : > >> >> Education & Learning to Think by Lauren B Resnick - (and a > >> >> section entitled "General Reasoning - > >> >> Improving Intelligence). > >> >> > >> >> "Recent research in science problem solving shows that experts > >> >> do not respond to problems as they are presented - writing > >> >> equations for every relationship described and then using > >> >> routine procedures for manipulating equations.Instead they > >> >> reinterpret the problems, recasting them in terms > >> >> of > >> >> general scientific principles until the solutions become almost > >> >> self-evident." > >> >> > >> >> He points out that the same principles apply to virtually all > >> >> subjects in > >> >> the curriculum. I would suggest that those experts are recasting > >> >> problems > >> >> principally in terms of physical common sense models. NARS, it seems > >> >> to > >> >> me, > >> >> "responds to problems as they are presented." > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ----- > >> >> 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/?&_ > >> >> <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Vladimir Nesov _mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > ----- > >> > 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/?&_ > >> > <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.6/1060 - Release Date: > >> > 09/10/2007 16:43 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> 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/?&_ <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Vladimir Nesov _mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ----- > > 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/?&_ <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.6/1060 - Release Date: > > 09/10/2007 16:43 > > > > > > > ----- > 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/?&_ <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/?&; > <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/?&; ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=52469995-8dc490
