On Jan 28, 2008 9:43 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stathis: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with > the > > real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you > > arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in > > a purely virtual environment? > > The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting > to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, > dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't > play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously > impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all > that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very > severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that > to a child, why do it to a computer?
Whew. That's... let me count... eleven anthropomorphic comparisons in one paragraph. You cannot use anthropomorphic thinking when dealing with AIs. An AI is more different from you than you are from a yeast cell. Both yeast cells and humans, after all, share the same basic biochemistry and the same design process (natural selection). Humans and AIs do not. > It might be able to spout an > encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it > wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. This is precisely what unintelligent computers do. You're describing the behavior of an unintelligent system, not an AGI (or even a modern-day AI). AI can already do much better than this. In 1999, computers were composing music, poetry, art, and literature, all without any kind of robotic apparatus. > As I > indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and > many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming, > backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence > via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps > mounting. At this point, you're starting to sound like the creationists. Any day now, you know, they're going to present hard, peer-reviewed evidence for intelligent design. Any day now... > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > - Tom ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=90811106-19bcc6
