SEZ: Instinct is critical and in the context of my work finding the structure that is behind these instinctual devices is essential. However, my intuition says it is not merely in the brain. It is not merely "the game" or the form of the "mental agent." The physical ability to stand at a sink with dexterous arms and hands counts for something. Implanting the cognitive structure for dish washing, for example, into a bird or a beaver will not get your dishes washed. Yes, that is the theory that intelligence is embedded in the various actions experienced, the lessons learned and accumulated in the Agent. But that kind of embedded device only needs to run sensors, internet services and WiFi, and perform any automated actions specified for it. . The learning part can be on a completely different computer, or a cloud of said servers and clients. IoT devices only need make the sensors sense and the effectors effect. That can be a task list which it loads and performs using its built-in software functions. Then the IoT device can transfer info and commands back and forth with learners to complete its task of actions and measurements, to collect and control its embedded experience. The experience is as instinctual as the beaver’s dam building, etc, because that software is initialized into the IoT’s teensy computer, along with the communication software it needs to support internet protocols. That is what the intersection of exploding IoT devices, cameras, voice recognition, face recognition, plunging prices for faster electronics, and mobile device apps have done. That has tilted the feasibility curves for IoT door locks, birdhouses, baby watchers, and nearly anything else that someone can dream up. So I think the convergence of robotics (e.g. Asimo, Running Dog {Ref?}, consumer cost drones, and IoT to the cloud) is driving it toward reality. Embedded intelligence, that is. The only remaining issues are the nitty gritty details still to figure out. -Rich Sincerely, Rich Cooper EnglishLogicKernel.com Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 12:17 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A No-Go Result For Human-Level Machine Intelligence Indeed John, Instinct is critical and in the context of my work finding the structure that is behind these instinctual devices is essential. However, my intuition says it is not merely in the brain. It is not merely "the game" or the form of the "mental agent." The physical ability to stand at a sink with dexterous arms and hands counts for something. Implanting the cognitive structure for dish washing, for example, into a bird or a beaver will not get your dishes washed. I assume that this is what you meant by "the wrong tools." On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:52 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Steven and Rich,
The following comment by Steven may sound perverse to Rich,
but it raises some important questions:
> As I read this, BTW, it appears to suggest that birds can wash dishes
> wash dishes or that one may simply train a beaver.
Three points:
1. Birds can't wash dishes the same way that humans do for the same
reason why humans can't wash dishes with a sewing machine -- they
have the wrong tools.
2. Beavers are born with an instinct to build dams, birds are born
with an instinct to build nests, and humans are born with an
instinct to speak a language. Each species has built-in tools
that are very well adapted for those activities.
3. But to build a good nest, dam, or sentence, they need to learn
from their parents how to use those tools, and they need a large
amount of creativity to discover all the required details.
> Your animal case is no different from the human case, so I find it
> hard to justify that it is "more critical" - from my point of view
> it is the same problem.
I certainly agree that it's the same problem. Learning to build
a nest, a dam, or a sentence involves the same kinds of neural
mechanisms *and* the same kind of learning and creativity.
If Chomsky were a beaver, he would claim that the "poverty of the
stimulus" problem requires a built-in procedure for dam building.
But instinct and built-in tools plus an appropriate environment,
learning from parents, and childhood creativity are sufficient.
To emphasize these points, I added slide 16 (copy below) to
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/micai.pdf
John
___________________________________________________________________
Slide 16 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/micai.pdf
MAKING AND USING TOOLS
The ability to make tools is a critical sign of intelligence:
* All animals, including humans, are born with a set of built-in tools.
* Birds can’t wash dishes for the same reason that humans can’t wash
dishes with a sewing machine: they have the wrong tools.
* Humans make and use the most elaborate tools, but biologists keep
discovering more species that make and use tools.
The role of instinct:
* Birds have an instinct to build nests, beavers have an instinct
to build dams, and humans have an instinct to speak a language.
* But the details of the nests, dams, and languages depend on the
animals’ built-in tools, the environment, learning from parents,
and creativity.
For every physical tool or activity, there is a kind of mental tool:
* Minsky’s mental agents correspond to the diversity of human
activities.
* The diversity of Wittgenstein’s language games results from the many
ways of using the human vocal tools for talking about the activities. |
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|