Pei,
A misunderstanding. My point was not about the psychology of
observation/vision. I understand well that psychology and philosophy are
increasingly treating it as more active/reasoned and implicitly referenced
Noe. My point is that *AI* and *AGI* treat observation as if it is passive
rather than reasoned - that I can't remember any discussion of this in any
context here or related places (& would welcome references otherwise) - and
the opinions you have expressed seem consistent with this.
Let me put this in context for you. Imaginative and visual reasoning are
massively underestimated throughout our culture. So, for example, while we
have had cognitive linguistics, & Lakoff & co talking about the fundamental
embodiment of language (and maths and symbol systems) for 2 to 3 decades
now, it was only last year that the first journal of Cognitive *Semiotics*
was brought out. Visual reasoning and tacit knowledge are obviously not new,
but they are v. understudied. Within 5 years, though, (& Ben can come back &
laugh at me if I'm wrong), they will have exploded as areas of study.
Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everyone is talking about observation as if it is PASSIVE - as if you
just
record the world and THEN you start reasoning.
Mike: I really hope you can stop making this kind of claim, for your own
sake.
For what people have been talking about on this topic, see
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-See-What-Empirical/dp/0878937528/ref=sr_1_6
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~noe/action.html
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/5/291/00005968.pdf
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
