Mike, your argument would be on firmer ground if you could distinguish between when a computer "understands" something and when it just reacts as if it understands. What is the test? Otherwise, you could always claim that a machine doesn't understand anything because only humans can do that.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 1:31 PM > Jiri, > > Clearly a limited 3d functionality is possible for a > program such as you > describe - as for SHRDLU. But what we're surely > concerned with here is > generality. So fine start with a restricted world of say > different kinds of > kid's blocks and similar. But then the program must be > able to tell what is > "in" what or outside, what is behind/over etc. - > and also what is moving > towards or away from an object, ( it surely should be a > "mobile" program) - > and be able to move objects. My assumption is that even a > relatively simple > such general program wouldn't work - (I obviously > haven't thought about this > in any detail). It would be interesting to have the details > about how SHRDLU > broke down. > > Also - re BillK's useful intro. of DARPA - do those > vehicles work by GPS? > > > Mike, > > > > Imagine a simple 3D scene with 2 different-size > spheres. A simple > > program allows you to change positions of the spheres > and it can > > answer question "Is the smaller sphere inside the > bigger sphere?" > > [Yes|Partly|No]. I can write such program in no time. > Sure, it's > > extremely simple, but it deals with 3D, it > demonstrates certain level > > of 3D understanding without embodyment and there is no > need to pass > > the orientation parameter to the query function. Note > that the > > orientation is just a parameter. It Doesn't > represent a "body" and it > > can be added. Of course understanding all the > real-world 3D concepts > > would take a lot more code and data than when playing > with 3D > > toy-worlds, but in principle, it's possible to > understand 3D without > > having a body. > > > > Jiri > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mike Tintner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Jiri, > >> > >> Quick answer because in rush. Notice your > "if" ... Which programs > >> actually > >> do understand any *general* concepts of > orientation? SHRDLU I will gladly > >> bet, didn't...and neither do any others. > >> > >> The v. word "orientation" indicates the > reality that every picture has a > >> point of view, and refers to an observer. And > there is no physical way > >> around that. > >> > >> You have been seduced by an illusion - the > illusion of the flat, printed > >> page, existing in a timeless space. And you have > accepted implicitly that > >> there really is such a world - > "flatland" - where geometry and > >> geometrical > >> operations take place, utterly independent of you > the viewer and > >> puppeteer, > >> and the solid world of real objects to which they > refer. It demonstrably > >> isn't true. > >> > >> Remove your eyes from the page and walk around in > the world - your room, > >> say. Hey, it's not flat...and neither are any > of the objects in it. > >> Triangular objects in the world are different from > triangles on the page, > >> fundamentally different. > >> > >> But it is so difficult to shed yourself of this > illusion. You need to > >> look > >> at the history of culture and realise that the > imposition on the world/ > >> environment of first geometrical figures, and > then, more than a thousand > >> years later, the fixed point of view and > projective geometry, were - > >> and > >> remain - a SUPREME TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN > IMAGINATION. They don't exist, > >> Jiri. They're just one of many possible > frameworks (albeit v useful) to > >> impose on the physical world. Nomadic tribes > couldn't conceive of squares > >> and enclosed spaces. Future generations will > invent new frameworks. > >> > >> Simple example of how persuasive the illusion is. > I didn't understand > >> until > >> yesterday what the "introduction of a fixed > point of view" really meant - > >> it > >> was that word "fixed". What was the big > deal? I couldn't understand. > >> Isn't > >> it a fact of life, almost? > >> > >> Then it clicked. Your natural POV is > "mobile" - your head/eyes keep > >> moving - > >> even when reading. It is an artificial invention > to posit a fixed POV. > >> And > >> the geometric POV is doubly artificial, because it > is "one-eyed", no?, > >> not > >> stereoscopic. But once you get used to reading > pages/screens you come to > >> assume that an artificial fixed POV is *natural*. > >> > >> [Stan Franklin was interested in a speculative > paper suggesting that the > >> evolutionary brain's "stabilisation of > vision", (a software triumph > >> because > >> organisms are so mobile) may have led to the > development of > >> consciousness). > >> > >> You have to understand the difference between 1) > the page, or medium, > >> and > >> 2) the real world it depicts, and 3) you, the > observer, reading/looking > >> at > >> the page. Your idea of AGI is just one big page > [or screen] that > >> apparently > >> exists in splendid self-contained isolation. > >> > >> It's an illusion, and it just doesn't > *work* vis-a-vis programs. Do you > >> want to cling to "excessive optimism" > and a simple POV or do you want to > >> try > >> and grasp the admittedly complicated & more > sophisticated reality? > >> . > >> > >> Jiri: 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). > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> 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/?&; > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
