Okay, with "text", I mean "natural language", in it's usual low-bandwidth form. That should clarify my statement. Any data can be represented with text of course, but that's not the point... The point that I was trying to make is that natural language is too low-bandwidth to provide sufficient data to learn a sufficient model about entities embedded in a complex physical world, such as humans.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Kingma, D.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sure, you could argue that an intelligence purely based on text, > > disconnected from the physical world, could be intelligent, but it > > would have a very hard time reasoning about interaction of entities in > > the physicial world. It would be unable to understand humans in many > > aspects: I wouldn't call that generally intelligent. > > Given sufficient bandwidth, why would it have a hard time reasoning about > interaction of entities? You could describe vision down to the pixel, > hearing down to the pitch and decibel, touch down to the sensation, etc. and > the system could internally convert it to exactly what a human feels. You > could explain to it all the known theories of psychology and give it the > personal interactions of billions of people. Sure, that's a huge amount of > bandwidth, but it proves that your statement is inaccurate. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
