On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Having that model and computing interactions with that model are two > different things. Humans do not actually compute their relation to other > objects with high precision, they approximate and iteratively make > corrections later. It turns out this may not be such a bad idea, > computational topology and geometry is thin on computable high-precision > results, but it kind of goes against the grain of computer science. > > It is not obvious that having that 3-dimensional model and being able to > compute extremely complex relationships on the fly are the same problem. We > can do the former, both as humans and on computers, but the latter is beyond > both humans and computer science. We have a model, but our poorly > calibrated interactions with it are constantly moderated by real-world > feedback. >
And it extends to much more than 3D physical models -- humans are able to adjust dynamic representations on the fly, given additional information about any level of description, propagating consequences to other levels of description and forming a plausible model from heterogeneous hints. I consider this ability to accumulate flexible, incrementally adjustable models, that can incorporate hints from nonatomic analogous models, to be the central capability of human-like intelligence. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- 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=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
