Matthias wrote:
> Your claim is that natural language understanding is
> sufficient for AGI. Then you must be able to prove that
> everything what AGI can is also possible by a system which
> is able to understand natural language. AGI can learn to
> solve x*3 = y for arbitrary y. And AGI can do this with
> Mathematica or without Mathematica. Simply prove that a
> natural language understanding system must necessarily be
> able to do the same.
Here's my simple proof: algebra, or any other formal language for that matter,
is expressible in natural language, if inefficiently.
Words like quantity, sum, multiple, equals, and so on, are capable of conveying
the same meaning that the sentence "x*3 = y" conveys. The rules for
manipulating equations are likewise expressible in natural language.
Thus it is possible in principle to do algebra without learning the
mathematical symbols. Much more difficult for human minds perhaps, but possible
in principle. Thus, learning mathematical formalism via translation from
natural language concepts is possible (which is how we do it, after all).
Therefore, an intelligence that can learn natural language can learn to do math.
> I have given the model why we have the illusion that we
> believe our thoughts are build from language.
>
..... snipped description of model
>
> My model explains several phenomena:
>
> 1. We hear our thoughts
> 2. We think with the same speed as we speak (this is not
> trivial!)
> 3. We hear our thoughts with our own voice (strong evidence
> for my model!)
> 4. We have problems to think in a very noisy and loud
> environment (because we have to listen to our thoughts)
I believe there are linguistic forms of thought (exactly as you describe) and
non-linguistic forms of thought (as described by Einstein - thinking in
'pictures'). I agree with your premise that thought is not necessarily
linguistic (as I have in previous emails!).
Your model (which is quite good at explaining internal monologue) - and list of
phenomena above - does not apply to the non-linguistic form of thought (as I
experience it) except perhaps for (4), but that could simply be due to
sensorial competition for one's attention, not a need to "hear thought". This
non-linguistic kind of thought is much faster and obviously non-verbal - it is
not 'heard'. It can be quite a struggle to express the products of such
thinking in natural language.
This faculty for non-linguistic mental manipulation is most likely exclusively
how chimps, ravens, and other highly intelligent animals solve problems. But
relying on this form of thought alone is not sufficient for the development of
the symbolic conceptual framework necessary to perform human-level analytical
thought.
Terren
-------------------------------------------
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
