Gentlemen,
There may be another consideration to include in the Mind and its
internal mental models and the components we refer to as images.
The fovea of the eye has recently been described as having an inner
densely packed region of cone cells very much smaller than previously
described(a Microfovea).
The eyes are capable of very rapid microscopic scanning, to perch an
edge just over these cells. The high speed twitch was discovered when
investigating certain reading disorders. Apparently accomplished
readers could scan a sentence and using the fine twitch( I’ll dig up
the reference in a few days) The expert reader was able to scan an
entire sentence at one pass and input the entire string(The eye moves
from left to right but is simultaneously twitching at a very high
frequency while still steadily progressing to the right (A single
letter or entire word could be balanced upon the micrfovea twitching
so that more Pixels so to speak are collecting data) .Some would call
this a form of adaptive optics as used in astronomy. Those that were
unable to do this were deliberately scanning one letter at a time and
attempting to build up each word letter by letter and word by word to
gain the sentence. A horribly tedious task and not one I can imagine
facilitating reading Novels. These people pass all typical vision
testing. The point of this anecdote is that the mental images are not
simple two dimensional and the observer is performing some other task
besides opening his eyes. The observer is adjusting his eyes and
stance to collect a multiplicity of images and different focal lengths
and from different references. The mental image of the object is
extraordinarily complex. So simple images comparison may not be
adequate when describing thought at the preliminary stages. The
multiple focal lengths, apertures, and the fact that images are
scanned across the retina in a number of patterns suggests that the
observer is indeed sampling the environment which was a key point on
one side or other of the cognitivists debate. The way the brain is
evaluating each image and eliciting further sequences of images with
slight adjustments is unlike simple photography.
The collection of visual data is probably more complex than smell or
touch, and It may seem that the act of collecting visual data is
itself the earliest evidence of a mind in operation. I suspect that
the need for studying an image is the need to find patterns within the
image that are familiar with those already in memory. Pattern
recognition. Hunting for edges and shadows perhaps geometric
primitives as well. So the thinking process starts at the first moment
of observation . The later forms of thinking seem to be more like
reflection and are less active and require less physical
participation. Not many individuals are aware of what their eyes are
doing when doing simple tasks but they are highly engaged.
If some meaning is associated with individual images ( where the edges
lay next to each other, the edges become some it) , then the cascade
of images may in some manner be building a small narrative. I am here
, it is there, the sun is over there the wind comes from there and my
dog is running after the white rabbit. ( Simple propositions for a
collection of its and whether they are moving or not) Later reflection
adds more detail the breed of dog, the species of rabbit, North South,
The name of the mountain range, the state or province( Perhaps
causality is introduced at this point correctly or incorrectly). The
narrator of his experience requires language at some later state to
put into order all the ancillary information correctly for sharing
with others. Perhaps he builds the primitive narrative simply to store
for easier recall ( he may well be a scientific witness or an
emotional hedonist). Reflection seems pretty far down the line and may
only be required to update minor details. As The narrative must be
open and available for amendments or combination with other such
holiday experiences. For instance the date and time would be added
later so that it can be sequenced with other narratives in order to be
an engaging guest at a beer festival for instance. The narrative may
be the only choice for storage. It seems that the specific language of
the speaker only enters after the simple propositions are created.
The simple propositions come closest to being modelled with notation ,
the complex narrative requires considerably more elaboration and then
introduces ambiguity.
Correct me where I stray off . But it seems that the Mind we wish to
construct has much to do with Cinematography concepts. That implies
much editing .
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2
Canada
(204) 2548321 Land
(204) 8016064 Cell
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
*On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
*Sent:* February-08-11 6:42 PM
*To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there
Eric, You wrote, paraphrasing Gibson,
that there was no easy distinction between exteroception and
proprioception).
Yes BUT….
Some of that information from the world is more useful to predicting
what I am going to do and other information is more useful for predict
what other things are going to do. I agree with JimL’s point that
simple navigation at sea can be pursued in an egocentric manner, but
as the Hutchins book makes clear, precious little in navy navigation
is actually done that way.
Nick
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
*On Behalf Of *ERIC P. CHARLES
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:32 PM
*To:* Vladimyr Burachynsky
*Cc:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there
I'm not sure whether it matters to this discussion, but James Gibson
(famous perceptual researcher) claimed there was no information about
the world that was not information about the self (or in
psych-parlance, that there was no easy distinction between
exteroception and proprioception). Perception of "the orientation of a
surface," for example, is always perception of "where I am," similarly
perception of "me falling" is also the perception of "the ground
moving towards my head."
Eric
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 05:06 PM, *"Vladimyr Burachynsky" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>* wrote:
Jochen said" "information about the system itself" and
"information about
other things" is the point where self-awareness begins "
Perhaps this thought is perhaps a little overly compacted. Information about
self does not require language, indeed awareness of the outside world does
not require language. If both are in place language does not arise
automatically. It does seem that a model of the world mapped out of
perceptions must exist and another symbolic map linking all images of
reality to meanings and to verbal symbols most also be in place.
There is still a lot of wiggle room about when self awareness emerges. I
am going to assume no human being is born knowing the language of it's
parents. That requires that an individual interact to begin learning the
things in its environment and the symbolic sounds and meanings. So the most
complex brain on the planet spends some 2 or more decades learning languages
bit by bit. Perhaps self awareness is a continuum not an actual object.
Through language games the individual constantly redefines the state of self
awareness.
That machine Mind we are hypothesizing apparently inherits the complete
library of outside things as well as the libraries of symbols and meanings
and does not require the prolonged tutoring of humans. This is actually a
very radical concept with some very peculiar consequences i.e. An entity
that requires no childhood or social connections yet is fully capable of
communicating with every other member immediately. I suspect that such
entities would not actually be social entities. They may be coldly
indifferent or exploitative of each other. Also these entities would not
have the ability to adapt should the environment change quickly.
If it is not already defined in all the relevant libraries , It seems to
have no means of extension according to the preliminary model we are playing
with.
\That does not seem to be what any of us had in mind when the discussion
started. It seems that to be what we call self aware it must exist in a
society and be able to also distinguish its thoughts from those of others.
That difference in individuals must also be attached to some kind of
motivation such as curiosity in order for them to exchange information. That
requires the Natural learning method that was assumed no longer useful?
with a requirement for information exchange and some socialization from
childhood the entities enjoy learning or so it would appear. So why do
humans resist Learning after some period of time.? Was there a failure
introduced by accident?
VIB
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2
Canada
(204) 2548321 Land
(204) 8016064 Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: February-06-11 3:25 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there
Hi Nick,
I would say language is the key, it is useful if the robot understands
language. A robot usually cannot recognize or perceive itself, if it is not
able to understand language.
In animals, information about the system itself is so important that it is
usually processed and controlled by an own system, the limbic system and the
autonomic nervous system, or in other words, largely by emotions.
So "information about the system itself" is processed by the limbic
system,
and "information about other things" by the cerebral cortex.
If robots are able to understand things
through language, then the point where
they start to distinguish "information about the system itself" and
"information about other things" is the point where self-awareness
begins.
To know the self means to know where the self ends, and where the rest of
the world begins.
-J.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas Thompson
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there
At what point in the complexity of a robot (or any other control
system)
does it begin to seem useful to parse input into "information about the
system itself" and "information about other things"?
Nick
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
