I think embodied linguistic experience could be *useful* for an AGI to do
mathematics. The reason for this is that creativity comes from usage of huge
knowledge and experiences in different domains.
But on the other hand I don't think embodied experience is necessary. It
could be even have
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a certain degree (mirror neurons).
Oh you just hit my other annoyance.
How does that work?
Mirror neurons
IT TELLS US NOTHING.
Trent
---
agi
Archives:
If you don't like mirror neurons, forget them. They are not necessary for my
argument.
Trent wrote
Oh you just hit my other annoyance.
How does that work?
Mirror neurons
IT TELLS US NOTHING.
Trent
---
agi
Archives:
Trent: Oh you just hit my other annoyance.
How does that work?
Mirror neurons
IT TELLS US NOTHING.
Trent,
How do they work? By observing the shape of humans and animals , (what
shape they're in), our brain and body automatically *shape our bodies to
mirror their shape*, (put
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
[snip] We understand and think with our whole bodies.
Mike, these statements are an *enormous* leap from the actual study of
mirror neurons. It's my hunch that the hypothesis paraphrased above is
generally true, but it is
I am well aware that building even *virtual* embodiment (in simulated
worlds) is hard
However, creating human-level AGI is **so** hard that doing other hard
things in order to make the AGI task a bit easier, seems to make sense!!
One of the things the OpenCog framework hopes to offer AGI
Trent,
I should have added that our brain and body, by observing the mere
shape/outline of others bodies as in Matisse's Dancers, can tell not only
how to *shape* our own outline, but how to dispose of our *whole body* -
we transpose/translate (or flesh out) a static two-dimensional body
I do appreciate the support of embodiment frameworks. And I really get
the feeling that Matthias is wrong about embodiment because when it comes
down to it, embodiment is an assumption made by people when judging if
something is intelligent. But that's just me.
And what's up with language as
I do not agree that body mapping is necessary for general intelligence. But
this would be one of the easiest problems today.
In the area of mapping the body onto another (artificial) body, computers
are already very smart:
See the video on this page:
http://www.image-metrics.com/
-Matthias
There is no big depth in the language. There is only depth in the
information (i.e. patterns) which is transferred using the language.
Human language seems so magical because it is so ambiguous at a first view.
And just these ambiguities show that my model of transferred patterns is
right.
An
David:Mike, these statements are an *enormous* leap from the actual study of
mirror neurons. It's my hunch that the hypothesis paraphrased above is
generally true, but it is *far* from being fully supported by, or understood
via, the empirical evidence.
[snip] these are all original
Matthias:
I do not agree that body mapping is necessary for general intelligence. But
this would be one of the easiest problems today.
In the area of mapping the body onto another (artificial) body, computers
are already very smart:
See the video on this page:
http://www.image-metrics.com/
I think here you can see that automated mapping between different faces is
possible and the computer can smoothly morph between them. I think, the
performance is much better than the imagination of humans can be.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
-Matthias
Mike Tintner wrote
Matthias wrote:
There is no big depth in the language. There is only depth in the
information (i.e. patterns) which is transferred using the language.
This is a claim with which I obviously disagree. I imagine linguists
would have trouble with it, as well.
And goes on to conclude:
Therefore
Matthias: I think here you can see that automated mapping between different
faces is
possible and the computer can smoothly morph between them. I think, the
performance is much better than the imagination of humans can be.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
Matthias,
Perhaps we're
Ben,
First, note that I do NOT fall into the group that says that you can't
engineer digital AGI. However, I DO believe that present puny computers are
not up to the task, and some additional specific research (that I have
previously written about here) needs to be done before programming can be
If you can build a system which understands human language you are still far
away from AGI.
Being able to understand the language of someone else does no way imply to
have the same intelligence. I think there were many people who understood
the language of Einstein but they were not able to create
On 10/18/2008 9:27 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
What rational computers can't do is find similarities between
disparate, irregular objects - via fluid transformation - the essence
of imagination.
So you don't believe that this is possible by finding combinations of
abstract shapes (lines,
Steve,
Ignoring your overheated invective, I will make one more attempt to address
your objections. **If and only if** you will be so kind as to summarize
them in a compact form in a single email. If you give me a numbered list
of your objections against my approach to AGI and other similar
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60
:O
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
It looks like if Sim City isn't a lie then machines -will- bootstrap
themselves to sentience but -will not- reach human intelligence. I'm
not too sure what this means. Maybe that we'll never see a faithful
duplication of a characteristically human distribution of abilities in
a machine. But I
I think it does involve being confronted with two different faces or
objects randomly chosen/positioned and finding/recognizing the similarities
between them.
If you have watched the video carefully then you have heard that they have
spoken from automated algorithms which do the matching.
On
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I think it's reasonable to doubt my story about how RSI will be
achieved. All I have is a plausibility argument, not a proof. What got my
dander up about Matt's argument was that he was claiming to have a
debunking of
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore I think, the ways towards AGI mainly by studying language
understanding will be very long and possibly always go in a
dead end.
No. Language modeling is AI-complete.
Matt wrote:
I think the source of our disagreement is the I in RSI. What does it
mean to improve? From Ben's OpenCog roadmap (see
http://www.opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime:Roadmap ) I think it is clear
that Ben's definition of improvement is Turing's definition of AI: more
like a human. In
2008/10/18 Eric Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60
Some thoughts on this:
http://streebgreebling.blogspot.com/2008/10/will-wright-on-ai.html
---
agi
Archives:
Matthias,
When a programmer (or cameraman) macroscopic(ally) positions two faces -
adjusting them manually so that they are capable of precise point-to-point
matching, that proceeds from an initial act of visual object recognition -
and indeed imagination, as I have defined it.
He will
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Bob Mottram wrote:
Some thoughts on this:
http://streebgreebling.blogspot.com/2008/10/will-wright-on-ai.html
I like his first point:
MACHINES WILL NEVER ACHIEVE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
According to Wright, one of the main benefits of the quest for AI is a
better
After the first positioning there is no point to point matching at all.
The main intelligence comes from the knowledge base of hundreds of 3d
scanned faces.
This is a huge vector space. And it is no easy task to match a given picture
of a face with a vector(=face) within the vector space.
The
Mike, I think you won't get a disagreement in principle about the benefits
of melding creativity and rationality, and of grokking/manipulating concepts
in metaphorical wholes. But really, a thoughtful conversation about *how*
the OCP design addresses these issues can't proceed until you've RTFBs.
2008/10/18 Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1)
There definitely IS such a thing as a better algorithm for intelligence in
general. For instance, compare AIXI with an algorithm called AIXI_frog,
that works exactly like AIXI, but inbetween each two of AIXI's computational
operations, it
Everyone,
Ben has made a really wonderful offer here:
On 10/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will make one more attempt to address your objections. **If and only
if** you will be so kind as to summarize them in a compact form in a single
email. If you give me a numbered list
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias,
When a programmer (or cameraman) macroscopic(ally) positions two faces -
adjusting them manually so that they are capable of precise point-to-point
matching, that proceeds from an initial act of visual object
Non-Constructive Logic: Any AI method that approximates AIXI will lack
the human capability to reason about non-computable entities.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Steve Richfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everyone,
Ben has made a really wonderful offer here:
On 10/18/08, Ben Goertzel
Dear friends,
This recent Thoughtware.TV addition might be of interest to you. It is a BBC
video, contributed by Arlind, on the Turing Test.
Our link:
http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/watch/2945-Can-Robots-think-Like-Humans
Theirs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7666836.stm
There
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The limitations of your imagination are striking ;-p
I imagine a future where AGI sneaks past us, like where Google can understand
50% of 8 word long natural language questions this year, and 60% next year.
Where they gradually
--- On Sat, 10/18/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-Constructive Logic: Any AI method that approximates AIXI
will lack the human capability to reason about non-computable
entities.
Then how is it that humans can do it? According to the AIXI theorem, if we can
do this, it makes us
Matt,
I suppose you don't care about Steve's do not comment request? Oh
well, I want to discuss this anyway. 'Tis why I posted in the first
place.
No, I do not claim that computer theorem-provers cannot prove Goedel's
Theorem. It has been done. The objection applies specifically to
AIXI-- AIXI
Nice post.
I'm not sure language is separable from any kind of intelligence we can
meaningfully interact with.
It's important to note (at least) two ways of talking about language:
1. specific aspects of language - what someone building an NLP module is
focused on (e.g. the rules of English
39 matches
Mail list logo
