Lukasz, I think the most realistic "near-term" (next 10/20 years?) telepathy technology will deal with sensory modalities, rather than high-level concepts. In particular, it doesn't seem unrealistic to directly interface the phonological loop of two people, or similarly the visiospatial sketchpad. These low-level areas of the brain probably "speak the same language" from person to person. This would allow people to exchange any sounds or images that they imagined. I can think of some obvious questions.
-How is it turned on/off, and how is it directed at particular people? -Is it possible to control which sounds/images are transferred, or would it be a dump of everything currently in working memory? -Can sounds and images coming in from the environment be easily shut out? -Would it be too unpleasant to have sounds or images forced upon one's imagination? Would current thoughts be erased, et cetera? --Abram 2009/1/4 Lukasz Stafiniak <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I plan to write a paper for a local CogSci conference, and a > super-cool subject that comes to my mind is that of minds > communicating through means more capable than what we're accustomed > to. Is a revolution in language possible? Brainstorming: > > - Every now and then you hear that new developments could lead to > telepathic devices (a naive post by the ever-famous Freeman Dyson > here: http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_3.html ""RADIOTELEPATHY", THE > DIRECT COMMUNICATION OF FEELINGS AND THOUGHT FROM BRAIN TO BRAIN") > > - A promise that AGIs could communicate with their "raw thoughts" > using their internal knowledge representation > > - A look from (AI-oriented) language semantics perspective: the > dichotomy of the universal ontology approach ("ontological semantics") > vs. the lexicon-grounded semantics ("multi-layered semantic networks") > > - Perhaps what I need to look at is the "architecture of > communication": a cascade (with feedback links) of > > -- "the want to express / to interpret", let's stick with the sender side > > -- the activation of the concepts to express > > -- the crystallization of the message (this can occur online while > expressing); it's a selection-abstraction phase that takes into > account the whole effect of the message on the receiver > > -- the selection of proper expressive means (for example, the stream > of words or gestures) > > - "it's language everywhere": when we describe a process > scientifically, we do it in some language; when we then engineer the > process, it seems to us to have its "true internal language"; with AI, > this is the KR, and the semantics are provided by mind dynamics; > "therefore" there is an internal language to every mind, separate from > the communication language, and thus the problem of expressing oneself > as translation; I'm sure a whole bunch of academic philosophy deals > with it (like the late Wittgenstein dismissing the translation idea) > > - A look at a cognitive architecture and how aspects of its operation > can be communicated across different minds that instantiate it: > referential meanings, complex concepts, emotions > > Could you share your thoughts? I'd appreciate relevant pointers. > > Happy New Year, > Łukasz Stafiniak > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- Abram Demski Public address: [email protected] Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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
