Matthias, still awaiting a response to this post, quoted below. Thanks, Terren
Matthias wrote: > I don't think that learning of language is the entire > point. If I have only > learned language I still cannot create anything. A human > who can understand > language is by far still no good scientist. Intelligence > means the ability > to solve problems. Which problems can a system solve if it > can nothing else > than language understanding? Language understanding requires a sophisticated conceptual framework complete with causal models, because, whatever "meaning" means, it must be captured somehow in an AI's internal models of the world. The Piraha tribe in the Amazon basin has a very primitive language compared to all modern languages - it has no past or future tenses, for example - and as a people they exhibit barely any of the hallmarks of abstract reasoning that are so common to the rest of humanity, such as story-telling, artwork, religion... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people. How do you explain that? > >Einstein had to express his (non-linguistic) internal > insights in natural > language >and in mathematical language. In both > modalities he had to use > his intelligence to >make the translation from his > mental models. > > The point is that someone else could understand Einstein > even if he haven't > had the same intelligence. This is a proof that > understanding AI1 does not > necessarily imply to have the intelligence of AI1. I'm saying that if an AI understands & speaks natural language, you've solved AGI - your Nobel will be arriving soon. The difference between AI1 that understands Einstein, and any AI currently in existence, is much greater then the difference between AI1 and Einstein. > >Deaf people speak in sign language, which is only > different from spoken > language in >superficial ways. This does not tell us > much about language > that we didn't already >know. > > But it is a proof that *natural* language understanding is > not necessary for > human-level intelligence. Sorry, I don't see that, can you explain the proof? Are you saying that sign language isn't natural language? That would be patently false. (see http://crl.ucsd.edu/signlanguage/) > I have already outlined the process of self-reflectivity: > Internal patterns > are translated into language. So you're agreeing that language is necessary for self-reflectivity. In your models, then, self-reflectivity is not important to AGI, since you say AGI can be realized without language, correct? > This is routed to the > brain's own input > regions. You *hear* your own thoughts and have the illusion > that you think > linguistically. > If you can speak two languages then you can make an easy > test: Try to think > in the foreign language. It works. If language would be > inherently involved > in the process of thoughts then thinking alternatively in > two languages > would cost many resources of the brain. In fact you need > just use the other > module for language translation. This is a big hint that > language and > thoughts do not have much in common. > > -Matthias I'm not saying that language is inherently involved in thinking, but it is crucial for the development of *sophisticated* causal models of the world - the kind of models that can support self-reflectivity. Word-concepts form the basis of abstract symbol manipulation. That gets the ball rolling for humans, but the conceptual framework that emerges is not necessarily tied to linguistics, especially as humans get feedback from the world in ways that are not linguistic (scientific experimentation/tinkering, studying math, art, music, etc). Terren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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
