Grounding requires sensoria of some sort. Not necessarily vision.
Spatial grounding requires sensoria that connect spatially coherent signals.
Vision is one form of spatial grounding, but I believe that goinometric
sensation is even more important...though it definitely needs additional
sensory modalities of either touch or vision. Preferably both.
Goinometric sensation tells your body what configuration it's in. It's
simpler. I suspect that even amoeba possess this sense.
I can imagine an intelligence that could form a spatial grounding given
nothing be goinometric sensation and LOTS!!! of relevant data, but it
would probably need some additional information ("Don't stick your arm
through your head!"), so I consider it rather unlikely.
If, however, you add touch and pain, then a reasonable spatial map
becomes a lot more plausible.
Vision is a very useful sense, and we think are very visual animals, so
we think highly of it. But notice that animals that adapt to life in
caves tend to discard vision. It's useful, but it's not the
be-all-end-all. Or consider how rats and mice have developed sensitive
hairs that register how far away an obstacle is, and exquisitely
sensitive noses for detecting what is somewhere close.
If an intelligence is to live in a computer, perhaps a direct
sensitivity to port signals might be more useful than an imposed
interpretation of those signals as vision? Different peripherals might
be connected at different times.
I consider it important that the AGI have built into it the capacity to
deal with spatial models, but I'm uncertain as to how many dimensions it
should be intrinsically able to handle. And I'm not at all convinced
that a spatial interpretation should be hardwired.
a wrote:
Bayesian nets, Copycat, Shruiti, Fair Isaac, and CYC, are a failure,
probably because of their lack of grounding. According to Occam's
Razor, the simplest method of grounding visual images is not words,
but vision.
As Albert Einstein quoted "Make everything as simple as possible, but
not simpler." I interpret the statement as the words are "simpler"
than pictures. But encoding vision as words is too simple.
I think that people do not notice visual pictures, visual motion and
visual text when they read is because they are mostly subconscious.
Mathematicians do not realize visual calculations because they do it
in their subconscious.
There is also auditory memory. You memorize the words purely as sounds
by subvocalization and then visualize it on-the-fly. I don't think
there is "auditory grounding". Auditory is a simply a method of
efficient storage, without translating it into visual.
You can also memorize the image of text. Then as you "understand" it,
you perform OCR.
-----
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=53294744-9f6608
