Terren:I know we've gotten a little off-track here from play, but the really
interesting question I would pose to you non-embodied advocates is: how in the world will you motivate your creation?
Again, I think you're missing out the most important aspect of having a body , (& is there a good definition of this? I think roboticists make some kind of deal of it). A body IS play, in a broad sense. It's first of all continuously *roving.* -continuously moving, continuously thinking, *whether something is called for or not* (unlike machines which only act to order). Frankly, the idea that a human or animal body and brain are programmed in an *extended* way - for a minute of continuous action, say, as opposed to short routines/habits tossed together, can't be taken seriously - we have a major problem concentrating, following a train of thought or sticking to a train of movement, for that long. Our mind is continuously going off at tangents. The plus side of that is that we are highly adaptable and flexible - very ready to get a new handle on things.
The second, still more important advantage of a body, (the part, I think, that roboticists stress) is that it "incorporates" a vast range of possibilities which surely *do not have to be laboriously pre-specified* - vast ranges of possible movement and thought that can be playfully explored as required, rather than explicitly coded for beforehand. Start moving your hand around, twiddling your fingers independently & together, and twisting the whole unit, every which way.It's never-ending. And a good deal of it will be novel. So the basic general principle of learning any new movement, presumably,is "have a stab" at it - stick your hand out at the object in a loosely appropriate shape, and then play around with your grip/handling - explore your body's range of possibilities. There's no "beforehand."
Ditto the brain has a vast capacity for ranges of "free *non-pre-specified* association" - start thinking of - visualising - your screwdriver. Now think of similar *shapes*. You should find you can keep going for a good while - a stream of new, divergent, not convergently, algorithmically pre-arranged associations, (as Kauffman insists).The brain is designed for free, unprogrammed association in a way that computers clearly haven't been - or haven't been to date. It can freely handle and play with ideas as the hand can objects.
God/Evolution clearly looked at Matt's bill for an army of programmers to develop an AGI, and decided He couldn't afford it - he'd try something simpler and more ingenious. Play around first, program routines second, develop culture and AI third.
P.S. The whole concept of an "unembodied intelligence" is a nonsense. There is *no such thing*. The real distinction, presumably, is between embodied intelligences that can control their bodies, like humans, and those, like computers to date, that can't (or barely). Unembodied intelligences don't and *can't* exist.
*Self-control* - being able to control your body - is perhaps the most vital dimension of having a body in the sense of the standard debate. Without that, you can't understand the distinction between inert matter and life - one of the most fundamental early distinctions in understanding the world. Without that, I doubt that you can really understand anything.
------------------------------------------- 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
