PM: What if signs = concepts. Does that change anything? This misses the whole point of semiosis/semiotics (although to be fair many semioticians don’t get it, as wiki indicates). You, like linguistically oriented semioticians, want to pin reference down. The reality is that there are a vast and ever proliferating array of sign systems – and EVERY SINGLE ONE has a unique function in portraying any object. Take cats. There are words that label cats, cartoons of them, photos of them, sculptures of them, paintings of them, diagrams of them, graphics of them, x-rays of them, maps of them, sound recordings of them, music of them, movies of them, mathematical descriptions of them, geometrical portraryals of them, logical references to them...etc. And EVERY SINGLE ONE portrays some different aspect/dimension of cats. Fact ... or certainly truth. So your concept of cat or any other object has to be a v. fluid affair, that can link and metamorphose into any and all forms of signs. This is v. hard not just for AI-ers but anyone in our present culture to grasp, because we are still not yet philosophically a true multimedia (vs unimedia, logocentric) culture that appreciates the value of all sign systems. [METAMORPHOSIS is a key dimension of all concepts - all concepts have to be capable of endless metamorphosis - because the objects they refer to are capable of endless metamorphosis]. Figures are the natural form for any concept because they can be fleshed in to form almost any other kind of sign, and because they represent the framework of objects. And it looks exceedingly like that is what the brain uses, because that is how we visibly use figures/graphics as actual, external signs. Note how the Cartesian grid is the basis for a vast array of signs – and how the atlas of maps forms a similar basis for many other signs. Figures are also the natural form for concepts because they link straight into body movement – provide a structure for body movement. No other sign system can easily do that. And again, you can look at our externalised use of sign systems, and see that is exactly how we use figures – for directing movement - e.g. the figures of an Ikea manual, or outlines of a choreographic routine, or battle plan, or route-map. The link between representation of objects and movements and enaction upon objects and movements is of massive and central importance. Language doesn’t connect to movement. Logic doesn’t connect to movement. Maths doesn’t connect to movement. But figures/graphics do. To sum up so far: we need ALL our sign systems to represent objects, not just one or two or three. Not just the 3 r’s for example. And a brain needs its natural equivalents of all these. We need our own mental movies, sound recordings, still photos, rough outlines/shadows, words/names/symbols.... But graphics/figures provide a natural central framework for linking all these different sign systems – and for linking representations of the world to actions upon the world, for linking outlines of objects to guidelines for actions upon them. Thirdly, one last fundamental dimension of concepts to realise is their “holy ghostliness”. The literate mind wants to pin concepts down, as PM quite naturally does – to be definitive. But concepts don’t have and don’t need any definitive form. It doesn’t matter what concept/figures of a cat your brain starts with. Whether its first figures are say a cat sitting or moving, or curled up. Since every concept is “by definition” metamorphic, it is fundamental to concepts that they can and almost certainly will evolve - in line with your knowledge and experience of the real world objects. Concepts of objects can start anywhere and evolve anywhere. Words may appear to have a definitive dictionary meaning (although in truth there is nothing definitive about dictionary definitions, but concepts dpn’t. P.S. I doubt that there is a single multimedia AGI-er – a single person who doesn’t think that an AGI will be able to be human-level inteliigent with just a handful of sign systems, esp. language, logic, maths and maybe some movie capability – whereas human-level intelligence actually involves a capacity for ALL sign systems.
------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
