I think one can now present a convincing case why any symbolic/linguistic
approach to AGI, that is not backed by THE SECRET SAUCE, simply will
not work.
The only practical way - and the ideal way - is to decide the specific
movement, by THE SECRET SAUCE. Exactly what this
should entail is open to discussion, (and getting much discussion
elsewhere), but for the sake of focussing our minds here, let's think of
it,
if only provisionally, as some kind of TASTE TREAT.
3) The ideal and simplest way to work out which specific movement is
required is by THE SECRET SAUCE - here some TASTE TREAT.
And the neuroscientific evidence keeps piling up that we do indeed plan
movements by THE SECRET SAUCE .
4)It shouldn't be too hard to see that the necessity of testing symbolic
language by THE SECRET SAUCE applies, by extension, to many other
areas of the world, as well as that of the movements of objects and
creatures. Descriptions of the forms of all objects and things. All
physical activities - hunting, sex, eating. All interactions between
creatures. Conversations. Emotions... Statements about all these also
typically depend on physical, imaginative knowledge of things' forms,
movements and behaviour.
In fact, there is, as Lakoff argues, no area that can be understood without
THE SECRET SAUCE , But I accept the need to demonstrate this further
with respect to more abstract areas. By all means challenge me, and I'll
think about it.
In the meantime, I believe I have made a convincing case that you cannot
understand how the world moves - and the core movement vocabulary of
language - without THE SECRET SAUCE . And if you can't do that, you
can't have a viable worldview.
ROTFLMAO!
So, why don't you cite real neuroscientific evidence (as in journal
citations) for THE SECRET SAUCE?
You haven't made any case at all. You've simply made statements that most
of us disagree with and call it a proof. BAH!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:43 PM
Subject: [agi] Why Symbolic Representation without Imaginative Simulation
Won't Work
I think one can now present a convincing case why any symbolic/linguistic
approach to AGI, that is not backed by imaginative simulation, simply will
not work. For example, any attempt to build an AGI with a purely symbolic
database of knowledge mined from the Net or other texts, is doomed.
This is obviously something I have long argued, but it has been difficult
to find a truly focussed argument with sufficiently general application
and power.
The basic argument:
Language depends on
1) "General Activity Language" - a core, very extensive vocabulary of
words for basic kinds of movements, which we all acquire normally very
early. These words/movements are essential for moving about, and
manipulating the world - and understanding how the world moves. They are
also essential for General Intelligence, because they apply to all
activities, and are central to the acquisition of new physical activities.
2) Our movement words, (like, in fact, all words), are general,
open-ended concepts which cover, in this case, vast, "all-encompassing"
ranges of specific, possible movements. In order to interpret them, we
continually have to decide which one of a vast range, is appropriate in a
given environment - for example, just which direction and angle we are
going to decide appropriate to "reach out" - horizontally, vertically, at
45% , 60%, 75%, etc. etc.
3). It is, if not absolutely impossible, utterly impractical, and absurdly
complicated, to instantiate a movement-word by any kind of symbolic
process - by, for example, first trying to symbolically label each and
every one of a range of possible movements.
The only practical way - and the ideal way - is to decide the specific
movement, by an imaginative/ sensorimotor simulation. Exactly what this
should entail is open to discussion, (and getting much discussion
elsewhere), but for the sake of focussing our minds here, let's think of
it , if only provisionally, as some kind of visual mapping process.
4)The same basic argument can be extended to every area of language. I am
focussing on this particular area because it is not only fundamental to
any worldview, but can be treated very concretely, and from a more or less
mathematical and robotics POV.
The argument in detail:
1) General Activity Language - it is acknowledged that we rapidly acquire
a certain vocabulary of basic words. What I'm focussing on here is that we
especially acquire a core of hundreds of basic movement words, such as:
"reach, push, pull, hit, punch, throw, kick, wave, catch, handle, grab,
put, move, enter, exit, slip, slide, remove, connect, disconnect, fit,
step, stride, walk, run, climb, jump, hop, leap, press, lift, raise,
lower, drop, pick up, fall, slip, knock, tap, shake, rock, roll, scratch,
settle, unsettle, slap, slop, fix, propel, repel, rope, stick, withdraw,
touch, finger, point, hold, snatch, thrust, scrape, grip, grasp, grope,
back, support, circle, rotate,
These can be considered as basic level concepts, which, like "dog", "cat,"
"bird," "chair," are the easiest to visualise - in this case as movements.
We also acquire a range of superordinate movement concepts, involving much
more general, and not so immediately obvious to visualise, categories of
movement, like:
"come, go, make, start, stop, give, take, use, do, be, get, dance, play,
heat, cool, add, subtract, travel, journey, advance, retreat"
(These can be compared to similar superordinate, not so
obvious-to-visualise, concepts such as: "animal," "furniture," etc.)
We also acquire a rich range of subordinate concepts, involving more
specific types of movements, some of which may belong to specific
activities, like:
"hammer, nail, screw, chop, slice, net, bat, elbow, head-butt, pin, clip,
vacuum, catapult, glue, brick, "
We also acquire a whole set of prepositions which give direction to those
movements, such as:
"in, into, on, onto, out, towards, away from, up, down, through, around,
inside, outside, over. under, along, underneath, about "
An AGI POV allows us to appreciate that this core vocabulary is a
brilliant invention of the human mind, although no doubt, animals share
many of the same concepts. These are general movements which can be
applied to any physical activity. They can be, and are, used to acquire
new physical activities/ skills. Look at the instruction manuals for
virtually any activity, and you will find that extensive use is made of
these basic words. A how-to-cook or a how-to-play-a-sport manual will
liberally tell you to "move", "put," "take," "go," "add" etc, and won't
be couched in entirely activity-specific words, like "play a
forehand/backhand/ drop shot," or "execute a pas-de-deux". (Any AGI must
have this vocabulary to succeed).
2) Our movement concepts are, like all our concepts, general and
open-ended. They cover vast ranges of possible specific movements,
typically "all-encompassing." For example, concepts like "reach," "push,"
"pull" can have a full, 360% range of possible trajectories -
http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=ad4mmmqgdom&thumb=4
and the same range again for every plane in 3-D space. (All suggested
improvements to my geometrically crude exposition here are welcome). There
may be then many other variables. The hands can be shaped in many
different ways. The arms can take many shapes, not just straight ones, and
twisted in many different positions. The body can be adjusted or bent in
many ways to support the movements. And the movements can follow many
different paths, not just straight ones.
Obviously, the possible ranges of movement will vary according to the
limbs used. But no matter what limbs, the possible ranges are still vast -
think of the virtually infinite shapes the hand can take to "handle"
objects.
[And new configurations for any given movement can always be, and often
are being, invented. "He reached out his arm in a V-shape." "John Cleese's
silly walk starts from a crouched goose-step."]
The prepositions of direction offer a similarly vast range of
possibilities - there are a vast number of different directions to move
things "over" a table/bridge/ground/hill/ mountain/ wave/logs etc etc.
2b) Movement concepts can of course be used in purely general ways - "He
likes to kick things". But a great deal of the time, they have to be
instantiated in specific forms, whether we are reading sentences about
movements, or taking briefs/instructions about how to move from others.
And they may have to be instantiated in any of the vast range of possible
ways.
"He reached for 1. the light bulb 2. showerhead 3. her shoulder 4. her
breast 5. the box on the table 6. book on the chair 7.hem of her dress 8.
his shoelace...etc" may all require trajectories at different angles to be
understood.
"He handled the 1. pin 2. orange 3. pen 4. knife 5 hand 6. soil 7. mud
...etc" may require any of a virtually infinite range of hand positions to
be understood.
And these different instantiations *have* to be fairly precise, if we are
to understand a text, or effect an instruction, successfully. The next
sentence in the text may demand that we know the rough angle of reaching -
and that, say, it was impossible because there was a particular kind of
object in the way.
3) The ideal and simplest way to work out which specific movement is
required is by imaginative simulation - here some visual, and/or some
other sensorimotor, schemas. It is typically straightforward to mentally
draw a line/trajectory from the relevant limb to the relevant target, from
the arm to the lightbulb, say, or the shoelace. We also find it simple
when working out how to handle different-shape objects, to
kinaesthetically and sometimes visually form our hands to corresponding
shapes in advance.
It would be absurd and almost certainly impossible to try working out
movements by symbolic means - by, say, listing every possible angle at
which an arm can reach out, and listing the normal heights of different
objects that can be reached for - or trying to apply some set of
mathematical, formulaic approach to the problem.
Clearly, the human mind doesn't do this. We rely on intuitive,
sensorimotor models of how we and others move, and how objects move, both
to plan our movements, and, when reading texts, to work out others'
movements. These are for the most part purely imaginative models, without
symbolic labels. This is evident in how we have extreme difficulty when we
try to symbolically/verbally analyse most of our physical skills and
habits, like how we ride a bike, reach for a knife, handle a shopping bag
etc etc. Our imaginative knowledge generally of how we and the rest of
the world move, is vastly greater than our culture's vocabulary.
In addition, working out specific movements depends typically on often
complex imaginative models of environments - of rooms, for example, and
where tables, showers, paintings, chairs etc are normally placed - models
which would also be absurd to try and hold in symbolic as opposed to
imaginative form.
And the neuroscientific evidence keeps piling up that we do indeed plan
movements by maps/ imaginative simulations.
4)It shouldn't be too hard to see that the necessity of testing symbolic
language by imaginative simulation applies, by extension, to many other
areas of the world, as well as that of the movements of objects and
creatures. Descriptions of the forms of all objects and things. All
physical activities - hunting, sex, eating. All interactions between
creatures. Conversations. Emotions... Statements about all these also
typically depend on physical, imaginative knowledge of things' forms,
movements and behaviour.
In fact, there is, as Lakoff argues, no area that can be understood
without imaginative simulation, But I accept the need to demonstrate this
further with respect to more abstract areas. By all means challenge me,
and I'll think about it.
In the meantime, I believe I have made a convincing case that you cannot
understand how the world moves - and the core movement vocabulary of
language - without imaginative simulation. And if you can't do that, you
can't have a viable worldview.
-------------------------------------------
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=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
