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?
Many or most people on this list believe that learning language is an
AGI-complete task. What this means is that the skills necessary for
learning a language are necessary and sufficient for learning any other
task. It is not that language understanding gives general intelligence
capabilities, but that the pre-requisites for language understanding are
general intelligence (or, that language understanding is isomorphic to
general intelligence in the same fashion that all NP-complete problems are
isomorphic). Thus, the argument actually is that a system that "can do
nothing else than language understanding" is an oxymoron.
*Any* human who can understand language beyond a certain point (say, that of
a slightly sub-average human IQ) can easily be taught to be a good scientist
if they are willing to play along. Science is a rote process that can be
learned and executed by anyone -- as long as their beliefs and biases don't
get in the way.
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.
This is a bit of disingenuous side-track that I feel that I must address.
When people say "natural language", the important features are extensibility
and ambiguity. If you can handle one extensible and ambiguous language, you
should have the capabilities to handle all of them. It's yet another
definition of GI-complete. Just look at it as yet another example of
dealing competently with ambiguous and incomplete data (which is, at root,
all that intelligence is).
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.
One thought module, two translation modules -- except that all the
translation modules really are is label appliers and grammar re-arrangers.
The heavy lifting is all in the thought module. The problem is that you are
claiming that language lies entirely in the translation modules while I'm
arguing that a large percentage of it is in the thought module. The fact
that the translation module has to go to the thought module for
disambiguation and interpretation (and numerous other things) should make it
quite clear that language is *not* simply translation.
Further, if you read Pinker's book, you will find that languages have a lot
more in common than you would expect if language truly were independent of
and separate from thought (as you are claiming). Language is built on top
of the thinking/cognitive architecture (not beside it and not independent of
it) and could not exist without it. That is why language is AGI-complete.
Language also gives an excellent window into many of the features of that
cognitive architecture and determining what is necessary for language also
determine what is in that cognitive architecture. Another excellent window
is how humans perform moral judgments (try reading Marc Hauser -- either his
numerous scientific papers or the excellent Moral Minds). Or, yet another,
is examining the structure of human biases.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Matthias Heger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:52 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
