Samantha, & Mike, >> Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand >> 3D space ? > > It depends on what is meant by, and the value of, "understand 3D space". > If the intelligence needs to navigate or work with 3D space or even > understand intelligence whose very concepts are filled with 3D metaphors, > then I would think yes, that intelligence is going to need at least > simulated detailed experience of 3D space.
If you talk to a program about changing 3D scene and the program then correctly answers questions about [basic] spatial relationships between the objects then I would say it understands 3D. Of course the program needs to work with a queriable 3D representation but it doesn't need a "body". I mean it doesn't need to be a real-world robot, it doesn't need to associate "self" with any particular 3D object (real-world or simulated) and it doesn't need to be self-aware. It just needs to be the 3D-scene-aware and the scene may contain just a few basic 3D objects (e.g. the Shrdlu stuff). Jiri ------------------------------------------- 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
