2008/12/20 Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org>: > > However, I have long been perplexed at the obsession with so many AI folks > with vision processing.
I wouldn't say I'm "obsessed" with it. On its own vision processing does nothing, the same as all other input processing -- its only when a brain/AI used that processing to create output that it is actually doing any work. Theimportnat thing about vision, IMO, is not vision itself, but the way that vision interfaces with a mind's model of the world. And vision isn't really that different in principle from the other sensory modalities that a human or animal has -- they are all inputs, that go to building a model of the world, through which the organism makes decisions. > But, it's not obvious to me why so many folks think vision is so critical to > AI, whereas other aspects of human body function are not. I don't think any human body functions are critical to AI. IMO it's a perfectly valid approach to AI to build programs that deal with digital symbolic information -- e.g. programs like copycat or eurisko. > For instance, the yogic tradition and related Eastern ideas would suggest > that *breathing* and *kinesthesia* are the critical aspects of mind. > Together with touch, kinesthesia is what lets a mind establish a sense of > self, and of the relation between self and world. Kinesthesia/touch/movement are clearly important sensory modalities in mammals, given that they are utterly fundamental to moving around in the world. Breathing less so -- I mean you can do it if you're unconscious or brain dead. > Why then is there constant talk about vision processing and so little talk > about kinesthetic and tactile processing? Possibly because people are less conscious of it than vision. > Personally I don't think one needs to get into any of this sensorimotor > stuff too deeply to make a thinking machine. Me neither. But if the thinking machine is to be able to solve certain problems (when connected to a robot body, of course) it will have to have sophisticated systems to handle touch, movement and vision. By "certain problems" I mean things like making a cup of tea, or a cat climbing a tree, or a human running over uneven ground. > But, if you ARE going to argue > that sensorimotor aspects are critcial to humanlike AI because they're > critical to human intelligence, why harp on vision to the exclusion of other > things that seem clearly far more fundamental?? Say I asked you to imagine a cup. (Go on, do it now). Now, when you imagined the cup, did you imagine what it looks like, or what it feels like to the touch. For me, it was the former. So I don't think touch is clearly more fundamental, in terms of how it interacts with our internal model of the world, than vision is. > Is the reason just that AI researchers spend all day staring at screens and > ignoring their physical bodies and surroundings?? ;-) :-) -- Philip Hunt, <cabala...@googlemail.com> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html ------------------------------------------- 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
