Russell:quite a few very smart people
(myself among them) have tried hard to design something that could
enhance its intelligence divorced from the real world, and all such
attempts have failed. Obviously I can't _prove_ the impossibility of this -
in the same way
that I can't prove the impossibility of summoning demons by chanting
the right phrases in Latin; you can always say, well maybe there's
some incantation nobody has yet tried.
Oh yes, it can be proven. It requires an extended argument to do so
properly, which I won't attempt here.
But it all comes down, if you think about it, to different forms of
sign/representation. The AGI-ers who think knowledge can be superaccelerated
are almost exclusively talking about knowledge in the form of symbols -
logical, mathematical, linguistic.
When you or I talk about gathering evidence and personal experience, we are
talking about knowledge gathered in the form of sensory images - and I am
also talking about "embodied" images - which involve your whole body
(that's what mirror neurons are referring to - when you mimic someone or
something, you do it with your whole body, not just your senses).
The proof lies in the direction of thinking of the world as consisting of
"bodies" - and then asking: what can and can't the different kinds of sign:
symbols - words/numbers/ algebraic-logical variables, - and then image
schemas - geometric figures etc. and then images - sensory/
photographs/movies/ etc - tell you and show you of bodies?
Each form of sign/representation has strictly v. limited powers , and can
only show certain dimensions of bodies. All the symbols and schemas in
existence cannot tell you what Russell Wallace or Vladimir Nesov look like -
i.e. cannot show you their distinctive, individual bodies. Only images (or,
if you like, "evidence") can do that - and do it in a second. (And that can
be proven, scientifically). And since the real world consists, in the final
analysis, of nothing but individual bodies like Russell and Vlad, each of
which are different from each other - even that ipod over there is actually
different from this ipod here, - then you'd better have images if you want
to be intelligent about the real world of real individuals, and be able to
deal with all their idiosyncrasies - or make fresh generalisations about
them.
Which is why evolution went to the extraordinary trouble of founding real
AGI's on the continuous set of moving images we call consciousness - in
order to be able to deal with the real world of individuals, and not just
the rational world of abstract general classes, we call logic, maths and
language.*
But, as I said, this requires an extended argument to demonstrate properly.
But, yes, it can be proven.
*In case that's confusing, language and logic can refer to individuals like
"Russell Wallace" - but only in general terms. They can't show what
distinguishes those individuals.
-------------------------------------------
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=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
