I think embodied linguistic experience could be *useful* for an AGI to do mathematics. The reason for this is that creativity comes from usage of huge knowledge and experiences in different domains.
But on the other hand I don't think embodied experience is necessary. It could be even have some disadvantages. For example, we can think in 3d spaces much better than in spaces of dimension n. But for science today, 3d-mathematics is less needed than mathematics of n-dimensional spaces. An AGI which gets nothing else than pure mathematical experiences in arbitrary mathematical spaces which we give the AGI by our mathematical definitions, could even have an important advantage against an AGI which is full of 3d patterns because of its 3d embodied experiences. I suppose the 3D vs. nD subject is just one of many examples one could find. But the main reason against embodied linguistic AGI for first generation AGI is the amount of work necessary to build it. I do not think that the relation of utility vs. costs is positive. - Matthias >>> Ben Goertzel wrote: That is not clear -- no human has learned math that way. We learn math via a combination of math, human language, and physical metaphors... And, the specific region of math-space that humans have explored, is strongly biased toward those kinds of math that can be understood via analogy to physical and linguistic experience I suggest that the best way for humans to teach an AGI math is via first giving that AGI embodied, linguistic experience ;-) See Lakoff and Nunez, "Where Mathematics Comes From", for related arguments. -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
