> > Obviously you didn't consider the potential a laptop has with its > network connection, which in theory can give it all kinds of > perception by connecting it to some input/output device.
yes, that's true ... I was considering the laptop w/ only a power cable as the "AI system in question." Of course my point does not apply to a laptop that's being used as an on-board control system for an android robot, or a laptop that's connected to a network of sensors and actuators via the net, etc. Sorry I did not clarify my terms better! Similarly the human brain lacks much proprioception and control in isolation, and probably would not be able to achieve a high level of general intelligence without the right peripherals (such as the rest of the human body ;-) Even if we exclude network, your conclusion is still problematic. Why > a touchpad cannot provide proprioceptive perception? I agree it > usually doesn't, because the way it is used, but that doesn't mean it > cannot, under all possible usage. The same is true for keyboard. The > current limitation of the standard computer is more in the way we use > them than in the hardware itself. > I understand that a keyboard and touchpad do provide proprioceptive input, but I think it's too feeble, and too insensitively respondent to changes in the environment and the relation btw the laptop and the environment, to serve as the foundation for a robust self-model or a powerful general intelligence. > > > to form a physical self-image based on its perceptions ... hence a > standard > > laptop will not likely be driven by its experience to develop a > phenomenal > > self ... hence, I suspect, no generally intelligent mind... > > Of course it won't have a visual concept of "self", but a system like > NARS has the potential to grow into an intelligent operating system, > with a notion of "self" based on what it can feel and do, as well as > the causal relations among them --- "If there is a file in this > folder, then I should have felt it, it cannot be there because I've > deleted the contents". My suggestion is that the file system lacks the complexity of structure and dynamics to support the emergence of a robust self-model, and powerful general intelligence... Not in principle ... potentially a file system *could* display the needed complexity, but I don't think any file systems on laptops now come close... Whether the Internet as a whole contains the requisite complexity is a subtler question. > > > I know some people won't agree there is a "self" in such a system, > because it doesn't look like themselves. Too bad human intelligence is > the only known example of intelligence ... I would call a "self" any internal, explicit model that a system creates that allows it to predict its own behaviors in a sufficient variety of contexts.... This need not have a visual aspect nor a great similarity to a human self. -- Ben ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
