Mike, I think you won't get a disagreement in principle about the benefits of melding creativity and rationality, and of grokking/manipulating concepts in metaphorical wholes. But really, a thoughtful conversation about *how* the OCP design addresses these issues can't proceed until you've RTFBs.
-dave On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > David:Mike, these statements are an *enormous* leap from the actual study > of mirror neurons. It's my hunch that the hypothesis paraphrased above is > generally true, but it is *far* from being fully supported by, or understood > via, the empirical evidence. > > >> [snip] these are all original or recently original observations about the >> powers of the human brain and body which are beyond the powers of any >> digital computer. You claimed never to have heard an original observation >> here re digital computers' limitations - that's because you don't listen, >> and aren't interested in the non-digital and non-rational. Obviously a pet >> in a virtual world can have no real body or embodied integrity). > > > It seems that your magical views on human cognition are showing their > colors again; you haven't supplied any coherent argument as to why the > hypothetical function of mirror neurons (skills empathy with and mimicry of > other embodied entities or representations thereof) could not be duplicated > by sufficiently clever software written for digital computers. > > David, > > I actually did give the reason - but, fine, I haven't clearly explained it > enough to communicate. The reason is basically simple. All the powers > discussed depend on the cognitive ability to map one complex, irregular > shape onto another - and that involves a "fluid" transformation, (which is > completely beyond the power of any current software - or,to be more precise, > any rational sign system, esp. mathematics/geometry). > > When you map your body onto that of the Dancers, (or anyone else's), you > are mapping two irregular shapes that are not geometrically comparable, onto > each other. There is no formulaic way to transform one into the other, and > hence perceive their likeness. Geometry and geometrically-based software > can't do this. > > When you see that the outline map of Italy is like a boot - a classic > example of metaphor/analogy - there is no geometric, formulaic way to > transform that cartographic outline of that landmass into the outline of a > boot. It is a "fluid" transformation of one irregular shape into another > irrregular shape. > > When you *draw* almost any shape whatsoever, you are engaged in performing > fluid transformations - producing *rough* likenesses/shapes (as opposed to > the precise, formulaic likenesses of geometry). The shapes of the faces and > flowers you draw on a page are only v. (sometimes v.v.) roughly like the > real shapes of the real objects you have observed, > > Think of a cinematic *dissolve* from one object, like a face, into another > - which is not a precise, formulaic morphing but simply a rough > superimposition of two shapes that are roughly alike. Crudely, you could > say, your brain is continually performing that sort of operation on the > shapes of the world in order to recognize them and compare them.. > > Or think of a face perceived through fluid rippling water. Your brain, > speaking v. loosely, is able to perform somewhat similar transformations on > objects. > > The human mind deals in fluid shapes. > > The human body continuously produces fluid shapes itself. When you move you > are continuously shaping and then fluidly transforming your body to fit the > world around you. When you reach out for an object, you start shaping your > hand to fit before you get there, and fluidly adjust that hand shape as > required to actually grasp the object. > > Geometry can only perform regular/rational transformations of objects - > even topology deals in the regular likenesses besides otherwise > non-comparable objects like a doughnut and a cup handle. Even, at its > current, most flexible extreme, the geometry of "free-form" transformation > is still dealing with formulaic transformations, that are not truly > free-form/fluid and so not able to handle the operations I've been > discussing. But the very term, free-form, indicates what geometry would like > but is unable to achieve). > > There is an obvious difference between geometry and art/drawing. Computers > in their current guise are only geometers and not artists. They cannot map > shapes directly - physically- onto each other, (with no intermediate > operations), and they cannot fluidly (and directly) transform shapes into > each other. The brain is manifestly an artist and manifestly organized > extremely extensively on mapping lines - and those brain maps, as > experiments show, are able to undergo fluid transformations themselves in > their spatial layout. > > Another way to say this, is to say that the brain has and computers don't > have,imagination - they cannot truly handle/map images/shapes. > > There is nothing magical about this. What it will require is a different > and/or additional kind of computer. A computer that can handle not only > rational operations, which all depend on taking things to (regular/rational) > pieces, but imaginative operations, which all depend on fluid comparisons of > (mainly irregular/irrational) wholes (without reducing them to pieces).. A > computer IOW that loosely copies not just one half, but both halves of the > human brain. > > All the operations that equal general intelligence - visual object > recognition, analogy, metaphor, conceptualisation, and creativity - - all > depend on imagination - fluid transofrmations of whole shapes/forms. > Rational AI can't perform these operations - and hence has consistently got > nowhere and never will get anywhere - until it joins with imagination. (BTW, > Ben, I'd be v. interested to know where you have seen this last proposition > before). > > P.S. The only "magical" notion in this discussion is the idea that there is > such a thing as "virtual embodiment" - that a "cardboard cutout" of a pet or > other agent in a virtual world, can have any embodied properties, or > embodied perception or intelligence. Fluid mapping depends on having a fluid > body. > > > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
