Bob:It seems fairly obvious to me that a large component of "thinking" is based upon visually derived concepts. In evolutionary terms language arrived late to the party, or only existed in primitive low bandwidth forms of communication.
Hi, Bob, I'm particularly interested in your response here. Yes, to the first part - and concepts are actually labels for complex clusters of images. But what interests me especially is how you respond to what I think is probably my most important assertion re you - and that is : we don't actually see "shots" in any photo or any real scene period - i.e. we don't see pure spatial arrangements of objects. We see every shot as a "still" - i.e. a slice of a movie sequence. Movies and not photos are actually the primary medium of conscious thought - and we delight in photos precisely because they stop - and "capture" - parts of the flow. If that's true, doesn't it have enormous consequences for Visual Object Recognition - and which if any people are thinking along those lines? (Remember Hawkins' insistence that we have to see an object in *motion* to understand it - which may in some cases means that the motion comes from the observer). No question re the evolutionary thing - formal symbols are a last-minute-before-midnight arrival to the party - which makes the insistence that symbols can do the whole job utterly absurd. Evolution ain't stupid. If it took billions of years perfecting the movie/ image parts of consciousness first, that's because that's the way it had to be, incredibly hard as symbol-ists and literate minds may at first find it to believe. ------------------------------------------- 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
