John:Just by defining "bricks" you are already applying rationalist
hand tying due to the fact that even your abstract "bricks" have a
limiting
rationalist inducing structure... Maybe "bricks" are too rationalist, I
want
to use "gloops" to build creative things that are impossible to build with
bricks.
John,
Smart observation, and dead right. Bricks are indeed basically rationalist.
Gloops - or I would say roughly circularish blobs, like a child's - are
essential for AGI.
Sound silly? Arguably the most essential requirement for a true human-level
GI is to be able to consider any object whatsoever as a "thing." It's a
cognitively awesome feat . It means we can conceive of literally any thing
as a "thing" - and so bring together, associate and compare immensely
diverse objects such as, say, an amoeba, a bus, a car, a squid, a poem, a
skyscraper, a box, a pencil, a fir tree, the number 1...
Our "thingy" capacity makes us supremely adaptive. It means I can set you a
creative problem like "go and get me some *thing* to block this doorway [or
hole]" and you can indeed go and get any of a vastly diverse range of
appropriate objects.
How are we able to conceive of all these forms as "things"? Not by any
rational means, I suggest, but by the imaginative means of drawing them all
mentally or actually as similar adjustable gloops or blobs.
Arnheim provides brilliant evidence for this:
"a young child in his drawings uses circular shapes to represent almost any
object at all: a human figure, a house, a car, a book, and even the teeth of
a saw, as can be seen in Fig x, a drawing by a five year old. It would be a
mistake to say that the child neglects or misrepresents the shape of these
objects. Only to adult eyes is he picturing them as round. Actually,
intended roundness does not exist before other shapes, such as straightness
or angularity are available to the child. At the stage when he begins to
draw circles, shape is not yet differentiated. The circle does not stand for
roundness but for the more general quality of "thingness" - that is, for the
compactness of a solid object as distinguished from the nondescript ground."
[Art and Visual Perception]
P.S. But to answer your criticism directly - had I not posited the bricks
analogy first, one could not move on to develop a "blobs/gloops" analogy.
The rational form is essential for defining the creative (or more creative)
form. And similarly, I have realised that rationality is essential for
*formally* defining creativity.
-------------------------------------------
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
