Jim:I know that there are no solid reasons to believe that some kind of embodiment is absolutely necessary for the advancement of agi.
I want to concentrate on one dimension of this: precisely the "solid" dimension. My guess would be that this is a dimension of AGI that has been barely thought through at all - rather like the claim that AGI projects are nonhuman;
What it comes down to is: what can you learn about any object[s] from flat drawings of them? Cardboard cutouts? It's a fascinating question, because it forces you to ask what you do/don't learn from the flat/solid object. [Bear in mind that almost ALL our culture's media are flat - there aren't too many statues and solid models around].
What can you learn from a flat representation of a building as opposed to the real thing that can be entered and walked around at will? Or a flat representation of a rock as opposed to the real to-be-handled object?
You can of course, make your building walkable through in the AGI world, on that flat screen, but every POV will be, presumably, programmer-defined beforehand. So what the system as a whole can truly *learn* is extremely limited.
Also, presumably, movement in this world, is simply movement of a flat shape through a flat world - with few dimensions of real object movement - weight, friction, heat, forces resisting you, balance and balance maintenance, centeredness, kinaesthetic awareness, inner emotions, feelings of energy, tirednessl
Ben and other similar AGI-ers, (Voss?), ought to have some papers on flatlands vs real, solidlands... do they? I'd doubt it.
But this question forces us to think about our culture's limitations as well.
------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
