Mike and Bob, There seems to be a massive confusion between data and information here. To illustrate: 1. A movie is just data until it is analyzed to extract some (if any) * useful* information. 2. A verbal description is typically somewhere in between, as it contains bits of ???, some of which may be useful, and some of which may NOT be useful. 3. A person interaction typically contains more *useful* information, because it can be directed to extract useful information.
>From Shannon's Information theory, we get the effect of the signal to noise ration (S/N) which determines just how much real information is in a bit of data. However, often missed is the fact that there are some commonly missed sources of noise. 1. A parameter cannot be accurately extracted, e.g. is the dog happy? Sure we can guess, but the result will probably contain substantially less than one bit of information. 2. Do we have any use for the "information". If not, then it is just more noise to discard, like the news report on an adjacent channel to the one we are listening to. In this example, what decisions hinge on the dog's prospective happiness? This might be really important to know if I plan to stick my hand into his mouth, but uninteresting if I am just going to feed him some dog food,. Hence, while there is a LOT more data in a movie than in a verbal description, there may well be more useful information in a verbal description. Continuing with your postings... On 12/11/08, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > I thought someone would come up with the kind of objection you have put > forward. Your objection is misplaced. ( And here we have an example of what > I meant by "knowing [metacognitively about] imaginative intelligence" - > understanding metacognitively how imagination works). > The important part here is the "meta", namely, the information that would NOT appear even on a movie, e.g. the time, place, people's names, context, etc. > > Consider what an image sequence/ movie of Ben talking to you would show. > Ben talking to you, uttering certain words, making certain gestures; his > face showing certain expressions. > Not very interesting unless Ben is talking about something that I am interested in. > > What you're bringing up here is not what the movie shows, but what went on > in your mind - your reactions - as you, in a sense, watched and listened to > that movie - and wondered about what was going on in Ben's mind *behind the > scenes*. "What does he really think and feel about this, that and the other > (as distinct from the limited amount of information he is actually > expressing)?" We all react and think similarly to other people all the time > and wonder about what's going on *invisibly* in their minds. > I suspect that this process fails when applied to either Ben or myself. > But an image/movie can only be compared with a verbal statement in terms of > what it *actually shows* - the *surface, visible action.* His actual, > observable dialogue and gestures and expressions - that and only that is > what a movie records with high fidelity.. > You are presuming that the verbal statementment is ONLY based on the movie. However, if I were to produce a report on Ben at Convergence08, it would include lots of things that I probably would NOT have captured if I had a video recorder, some of which would have been tested and refined in conversation with Ben. > > In terms of those actual actions, an image/ image sequence is *infinitely* > superior to any verbal description. No verbal description could *begin* to > convey to you his particular smile and the curl of his lips, the drone of > his voice, the precise music of his statements, the tangled state of his > hair, the way he tosses his hair etc. etc. No words could tell or show you > his state of body - his posture and attitude - at 10.05.01-to-10.05.02 pm. > Lots of refined data, but little useful information. The nice thing about verbal communication is that it typically only includes prospectively useful information. > [Words (along with other symbols, like numbers and algebraic symbols) can > only provide the *formulae* for objects - their constitutents. They can > never provide you, as images do, with actual maps of the whole *forms* of > objects - and therefore the layout of those constituents. They can never > give us - and we can never "get the picture". of those objects. > There is a BIG difference between a surface image and a complete ontological understanding. > > Consider a verbal statement: > > "The Alsatian suddenly bit the man on the face." > > What you have there is a complex action decomposed into a set of words - a > verbal formula. How much do you now know about the action being referred to? > > > Now try an image:of the same: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk9yHKQRE94&feature=related > > Notice the difference? Now you've seen the whole dog engaging in the whole > action - and you've got the picture - the whole form, not just the formula] > However, what USEFUL information do you get from this movie, that might prospectively affect your future actions, that couldn't prospectively be put into words. A friend of mine once fought and killed an attacking St Bernard dog with his bare hands. While I suspect that a movie of this would have been spectacular, the USEFUL information is how it is possible to kill a vicious attacking animal with your bear hands. Secret - when they lunge to bite you, you cram your fist as far down their throat as is humanly possible and then expand it to block their airway. Of course, this expansion would NOT be visible on a movie. The animal then suffocates as the battle continues. This fellow has the scars on his upper arms that show what this fight must have been like. Here, a still picture wouldn't convey much more useful information than a description, but sometimes, a picture really IS worth a thousand words in proving a point. > > And here's the reason I talk about understanding metacognitively about > imaginative intelligence. (I don't mean to be disparaging - I understand > comparably little re logic, say]. If you were a filmmaker, say, and had > thought about the problems of filmmaking, you would probably be alive to the > difference between what images show - people's actual faces and voices - and > what they can't show - what lies behind - their hidden thoughts and > emotions. And you wouldn't have posed your objection. > We obviously still have some issues regarding data vs. prospectively useful information to iron out. Steve Richfield =================== > MT:: >> >> *Even words for individuals are generalisations. >> *"Ben Goertzel" is a continuously changing reality. At 10.05 pm he will be >> different from 10.00pm, and so on. He is in fact many individuals. >> *Any statement about an individual, like "Ben Goertzel", is also vague and >> open-ended. >> >> *The only way to refer to and capture individuals with high (though not >> perfect) precision is with images. >> *A movie of Ben chatting from 10.00pm to 10.05pm will be subject to >> extremely few possible interpretations, compared with a verbal statement >> about him. >> > > Even better than a movie, I had some opportunity to observe and interact > with Ben during CONVERGENCE08, I dispute the above statement! > > I had sought to extract just a few specific bits of information from/about > Ben. Using VERY specific examples: > > Bit#1: Did Ben understand that AI/AGI code and NN representation were > interchangeable, at the prospective cost of some performance one way or the > other. Bit#1=TRUE. > > Bit#2: Did Ben realize that there were prospectively ~3 orders of magnitude > in speed available by running NN instead of AI/AGI representation on an > array processor instead of a scalar (x86) processor. Bit#2 affected by > question, now True, but utility disputed by the apparent unavailability of > array processors. > > Bit#3: Did Ben realize that the prospective emergence of array processors > (e.g. as I have been promoting) would obsolete much of his present > work, because its structure isn't vectorizable, so he is in effect betting > on continued stagnation in processor architecture, and may in fact be a > small component in a large industry failure by denying market? Bit#3= > probably FALSE. > > As always, I attempted to "get the measure of the man", but as so often > happens with leaders, there just isn't a "bin" to toss them in. Without an > appropriate bin, I got lots of raw data (e.g., he has a LOT of hair), but > not all that much usable data. > > Alternatively, the Director of R&D for Google had a bin waiting for him, as > like SO many people who rise to the top of narrowly-focused organizations, > he had completely "bought into" the myths at Google without allowing for > usurping technologies. I saw the same thing at Microsoft when I examined > their R&D operations in 1995. It takes a particular sort of narrow mind to > rise to the top of a narrowly-focused organization. Here, there aren't many > bits of description about the individuals, but I could easily write a book > about the"bin" that the purest of them rise to fill. > > Steve Richfield > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
