If you really have read that paper carefully, you shouldn't ask me to "define" the meaning of any concept, verbally or not.
Pei On Feb 16, 2008 11:52 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PeI:> To test the power of "visual reasoning", here is a rough visual > > explanation on two very different ways for "symbols" to get their > > meaning: > > > > http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.semantics-figure.pdf > > > > Wow, I have to stop talking but this is really stimulating. Your > paper/illustrations are v. useful as far as they go, but they are almost > literally the tip of the iceberg. Your Experience-Grounded Semantics > represents a flower/pot as a tree or net of attached symbols > > "plant - containing - blossom - round" etc > > Now can we please have the VAST attached clusters/ trees of images of > flowers and pots that your brain has, and uses, to understand and process > flowers/plants - the huge image and movie databank that it also brings to > bear. When you see a plant wilting, or with a strange bit of Xmas decoration > on it, you don't, I suggest, understand that by consulting any symbolic > network - a direct image comparison of a normal erect healthy plant and a > drooping plant is what produces that "wilting" conclusion. And there's > nothing that could conceivably be (at least not normally) in your verbal > network to know that that decoration doesn't belong in February. Again the > conclusion comes from a visual comparison of most normal unladen plants with > this decoration-laden one. ["Laden", "unladen," "festooned" or comparable > concepts just won't exist in your immediate network of verbal associations]. > > And such embodied image processing of the world is actually (though it > certainly doesn't appear so at first) much more efficient. You'll find, I > suggest, that a lot of words you're suggesting like "containing" and "round" > don't even need to be, and aren't, there. You can see them directly from > the images - e.g.. if you see a plant in a pot without earth but with some > weird plastics or toys, you (i.e. mainly here your unconscious brain) will > know directly from comparisons of the images in your mind, that that pot > does not "contain" what it should, and not from flipping down some network > of words. > > Here lies the value of Lakoff and co - a lot of this has been experimentally > tested/ supported, even though, rather like Blakeslee and body maps, we are > not culturally on top of it at all. For example, there are now a very large > body of experiments to show that you cannot think about moving in whatever > way without the relevant motor or pre-motor areas coming into play, or think > about plates and presumably flowers without the relevant image and not just > symbol areas coming into play. ( I'm not just talking about direct visual > perception of, but also thinking in words about, objects as dependent on > image-processing). > > One sort of tangential but utterly crucial way you can test this is the > following: > > please define "plant". Verbally. > > Try it. > > I think you'll find that you don't have a consistent definition of any > concept or any word whatsoever. (You might produce one today, but you > wouldn't be able to produce the same one another time, unless it has been > formally learned by heart, like your AGI definition). > > Nor can you offer a *method* of defining and/or redefining "plant" or > "table" or "AI" or "intelligence" or "red" - and you CANNOT OFFER A METHOD > OF DEFINING ANY CONCEPT FROM A VERBAL NETWORK. (Sorry for shouting, but, if > true, it's so important - and the evidence of cognitive science's failure to > pin down how we conceptualise, suggests it is true) > > Why? Because your definitions of plant, when you attempt them will be > largely dependent on consulting not words, but your "experience" - your > images - of plants and the rest of the world. > > And there is no way to bind those diverse images into a single image, let > alone word. A word/concept is merely a label on a box containing a v. > complex and dynamic network of images of objects that cannot be reduced to a > single configuration. You have a truly vast set of images for "plant", and > somewhat less vast set for a more specific concept like "tulip." Neither can > be reduced to a single definitive image/form/ structure, or indeed set of > images etc. When you try, you always run into trouble - for example, your > "round" is false as a fixed definition of pots! And your image bank knows > that. > > What you're doing above is confusing the label on the box with the image > contents, (or the tip with the whole iceberg). Nothing personal - nearly > everyone does. > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
