On Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30:34 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
> On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> > My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
> > AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
> > for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to
> > be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they
> > had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an
> > accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for.
> >> Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I
> have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use.
> Also having a very extensive 'book'
> memory is something humans use. But the memorized games and position
> evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in
> general problem solving. So I think chess programs did contribute a
> to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes.
> Some manner (e.g. algorithm) of pruning the uninteresting branches -- as
> they are discovered -- from dynamic sets of interest is fundamental in
> to achieve scalability. Without being able to throw stuff out as stuff
> in -- via the senses (and meta interactions with the internal state of
> -- such as memories) -- an being will rather quickly gum up in information
> overload and memory exhaustion. Without pruning; growth grows
> out of control.
> There is pretty good evidence -- from what I have read about current
> science -- that the brain is indeed, throwing away a large portion of raw
> sensory data during the process of reifying these streams into the smooth
> internal construct or model of reality that we in fact experience. In
> words our model -- what we "see", what we "hear", "taste", "smell",
> "orient" [a distinct inner ear organ] (and perhaps other senses -- such
> the sense of the directional flow of time perhaps as well)... in any case
> this construct, which is what we perceive as real contains (and is
> constructed from) only a fraction of the original stream of raw sensorial
> data. In fact in some cases the brain can be tricked into "editing" actual
> real sense supplied visual reality for example literally out of the
> -- as has experimentally been demonstrated.
> We do not experience the real world; we experience the model of it,
You are assuming that there is a real world that is independent of some
'modeling' of it. This is almost certainly untrue. If there were an
objective world, we would live in it. Nothing can be said to exist outside
of some experience of it, whether that is molecules bonding, or bacteria
communicating chemically, or quantum entanglement. The view from nowhere is
a fantasy. The notion of a model is based on our experiences of using
analogy and metaphor, but it has no meaning when we are considering the
power to interpret meaning in the first place. If the brain were able to
compose a model of sense experience without itself having any model of
sense experience, then it would not make sense to have a model that
requires some sensory display. Such a model would only require an infinite
regress of models to make sense of each other. The idea of a 'model' does
not help solve the problem, it makes a new problem.
That's my view, anyhow.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.