Terren wrote:
>Isn't the *learning* of language the entire point? If you don't have an answer for >how an AI learns language, you haven't solved anything. The understanding of >language only seems simple from the point of view of a fluent speaker. Fluency >however should not be confused with a lack of intellectual effort - rather, it's a >state in which the effort involved is automatic and beyond awareness. I don't think that learning of language is the entire point. If I have only learned language I still cannot create anything. A human who can understand language is by far still no good scientist. Intelligence means the ability to solve problems. Which problems can a system solve if it can nothing else than language understanding? >Einstein had to express his (non-linguistic) internal insights in natural language >and in mathematical language. In both modalities he had to use his intelligence to >make the translation from his mental models. The point is that someone else could understand Einstein even if he haven't had the same intelligence. This is a proof that understanding AI1 does not necessarily imply to have the intelligence of AI1. >Deaf people speak in sign language, which is only different from spoken language in >superficial ways. This does not tell us much about language that we didn't already >know. But it is a proof that *natural* language understanding is not necessary for human-level intelligence. >It is surely true that much/most of our cognitive processing is not at all >linguistic, and that there is much that happens beyond our awareness. However, >language is a necessary tool, for humans at least, to obtain a competent conceptual >framework, even if that framework ultimately transcends the linguistic dynamics that >helped develop it. Without language it is hard to see how humans could develop self->reflectivity. I have already outlined the process of self-reflectivity: Internal patterns are translated into language. This is routed to the brain's own input regions. You *hear* your own thoughts and have the illusion that you think linguistically. If you can speak two languages then you can make an easy test: Try to think in the foreign language. It works. If language would be inherently involved in the process of thoughts then thinking alternatively in two languages would cost many resources of the brain. In fact you need just use the other module for language translation. This is a big hint that language and thoughts do not have much in common. -Matthias ------------------------------------------- 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
