I just LOVE opaque postings, because they identify people who see things
differently than I do. I'm not sure what you are saying here, so I'll make
some "random" responses to exhibit my ignorance and elicit more explanation.

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:53 AM, rob levy <> wrote:

> In order to have perceptual/conceptual similarity, it might make sense that
> there is distance metric over conceptual spaces mapping

 It sounds like this is a finer measure than the "dimensionality" that I was
referencing. However, I don't see how to reduce anything as quantized as
dimensionality into finer measures. Can you say some more about this?

(ala Gardenfors or something like this theory)  underlying how the
> experience of reasoning through is carried out.
This has the advantage of being motivated by neuroscience findings (which
> are seldom convincing, but in this case it is basic solid neuroscience
> research) that there are topographic maps in the brain.

However, different people's brains, even the brains of identical twins, have
DIFFERENT mappings. This would seem to mandate experience-formed topology.

> Since these conceptual spaces that structure sensorimotor
> expectation/prediction (including in higher order embodied exploration of
> concepts I think) are multidimensional spaces, it seems likely that some
> kind of neural computation over these spaces must occur,

I agree.

> though I wonder what it actually would be in terms of neurons, (and if that
> matters).

I don't see any route to the answer except via neurons.

> But that is different from what would be considered quantitative reasoning,
> because from the phenomenological perspective the person is training
> sensorimotor expectations by perceiving and doing.  And creative conceptual
> shifts (or recognition of novel perceptual categories) can also be explained
> by this feedback between trained topographic maps and embodied interaction
> with environment (experienced at the ecological level as sensorimotor
> expectations (driven by neural maps). Sensorimotor expectation is the basis
> of dynamics of perception and coceptualization).

All of which is computation of various sorts, the basics of which need to be


> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ben Goertzel <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Steve Richfield <
>>> wrote:
>>> Ben,
>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Ben Goertzel <> wrote:
>>>>  know what dimensional analysis is, but it would be great if you could
>>>> give an example of how it's useful for everyday commonsense reasoning such
>>>> as, say, a service robot might need to do to figure out how to clean a
>>>> house...
>>> How much detergent will it need to clean the floors? Hmmm, we need to
>>> know ounces. We have the length and width of the floor, and the bottle says
>>> to use 1 oz/M^2. How could we manipulate two M-dimensioned quantities and 1
>>> oz/M^2 dimensioned quantity to get oz? The only way would seem to be to
>>> multiply all three numbers together to get ounces. This WITHOUT
>>> "understanding" things like surface area, utilization, etc.
>> I think that the El Salvadorean maids who come to clean my house
>> occasionally, solve this problem without any dimensional analysis or any
>> quantitative reasoning at all...
>> Probably they solve it based on nearest-neighbor matching against past
>> experiences cleaning other dirty floors with water in similarly sized and
>> shaped buckets...
>> -- ben g
>>    *agi* | Archives <>
>> <> | 
>> Modify<;>Your Subscription
>> <>
>    *agi* | Archives <>
> <> | 
> Modify<;>Your Subscription
> <>

RSS Feed:
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox:

Reply via email to