Gentlemen,
There may be another consideration to include in the Mind and its internal mental models and the components we refer to as images. The fovea of the eye has recently been described as having an inner densely packed region of cone cells very much smaller than previously described(a Microfovea). The eyes are capable of very rapid microscopic scanning, to perch an edge just over these cells. The high speed twitch was discovered when investigating certain reading disorders. Apparently accomplished readers could scan a sentence and using the fine twitch( I’ll dig up the reference in a few days) The expert reader was able to scan an entire sentence at one pass and input the entire string(The eye moves from left to right but is simultaneously twitching at a very high frequency while still steadily progressing to the right (A single letter or entire word could be balanced upon the micrfovea twitching so that more Pixels so to speak are collecting data) .Some would call this a form of adaptive optics as used in astronomy. Those that were unable to do this were deliberately scanning one letter at a time and attempting to build up each word letter by letter and word by word to gain the sentence. A horribly tedious task and not one I can imagine facilitating reading Novels. These people pass all typical vision testing. The point of this anecdote is that the mental images are not simple two dimensional and the observer is performing some other task besides opening his eyes. The observer is adjusting his eyes and stance to collect a multiplicity of images and different focal lengths and from different references. The mental image of the object is extraordinarily complex. So simple images comparison may not be adequate when describing thought at the preliminary stages. The multiple focal lengths, apertures, and the fact that images are scanned across the retina in a number of patterns suggests that the observer is indeed sampling the environment which was a key point on one side or other of the cognitivists debate. The way the brain is evaluating each image and eliciting further sequences of images with slight adjustments is unlike simple photography. The collection of visual data is probably more complex than smell or touch, and It may seem that the act of collecting visual data is itself the earliest evidence of a mind in operation. I suspect that the need for studying an image is the need to find patterns within the image that are familiar with those already in memory. Pattern recognition. Hunting for edges and shadows perhaps geometric primitives as well. So the thinking process starts at the first moment of observation . The later forms of thinking seem to be more like reflection and are less active and require less physical participation. Not many individuals are aware of what their eyes are doing when doing simple tasks but they are highly engaged. If some meaning is associated with individual images ( where the edges lay next to each other, the edges become some it) , then the cascade of images may in some manner be building a small narrative. I am here , it is there, the sun is over there the wind comes from there and my dog is running after the white rabbit. ( Simple propositions for a collection of its and whether they are moving or not) Later reflection adds more detail the breed of dog, the species of rabbit, North South, The name of the mountain range, the state or province( Perhaps causality is introduced at this point correctly or incorrectly). The narrator of his experience requires language at some later state to put into order all the ancillary information correctly for sharing with others. Perhaps he builds the primitive narrative simply to store for easier recall ( he may well be a scientific witness or an emotional hedonist). Reflection seems pretty far down the line and may only be required to update minor details. As The narrative must be open and available for amendments or combination with other such holiday experiences. For instance the date and time would be added later so that it can be sequenced with other narratives in order to be an engaging guest at a beer festival for instance. The narrative may be the only choice for storage. It seems that the specific language of the speaker only enters after the simple propositions are created. The simple propositions come closest to being modelled with notation , the complex narrative requires considerably more elaboration and then introduces ambiguity. Correct me where I stray off . But it seems that the Mind we wish to construct has much to do with Cinematography concepts. That implies much editing . Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca> vbur...@shaw.ca 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2 Canada (204) 2548321 Land (204) 8016064 Cell From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: February-08-11 6:42 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there Eric, You wrote, paraphrasing Gibson, that there was no easy distinction between exteroception and proprioception). Yes BUT…. Some of that information from the world is more useful to predicting what I am going to do and other information is more useful for predict what other things are going to do. I agree with JimL’s point that simple navigation at sea can be pursued in an egocentric manner, but as the Hutchins book makes clear, precious little in navy navigation is actually done that way. Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:32 PM To: Vladimyr Burachynsky Cc: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there I'm not sure whether it matters to this discussion, but James Gibson (famous perceptual researcher) claimed there was no information about the world that was not information about the self (or in psych-parlance, that there was no easy distinction between exteroception and proprioception). Perception of "the orientation of a surface," for example, is always perception of "where I am," similarly perception of "me falling" is also the perception of "the ground moving towards my head." Eric On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 05:06 PM, "Vladimyr Burachynsky" <vbur...@shaw.ca> wrote: Jochen said" "information about the system itself" and "information about other things" is the point where self-awareness begins " Perhaps this thought is perhaps a little overly compacted. Information about self does not require language, indeed awareness of the outside world does not require language. If both are in place language does not arise automatically. It does seem that a model of the world mapped out of perceptions must exist and another symbolic map linking all images of reality to meanings and to verbal symbols most also be in place. There is still a lot of wiggle room about when self awareness emerges. I am going to assume no human being is born knowing the language of it's parents. That requires that an individual interact to begin learning the things in its environment and the symbolic sounds and meanings. So the most complex brain on the planet spends some 2 or more decades learning languages bit by bit. Perhaps self awareness is a continuum not an actual object. Through language games the individual constantly redefines the state of self awareness. That machine Mind we are hypothesizing apparently inherits the complete library of outside things as well as the libraries of symbols and meanings and does not require the prolonged tutoring of humans. This is actually a very radical concept with some very peculiar consequences i.e. An entity that requires no childhood or social connections yet is fully capable of communicating with every other member immediately. I suspect that such entities would not actually be social entities. They may be coldly indifferent or exploitative of each other. Also these entities would not have the ability to adapt should the environment change quickly. If it is not already defined in all the relevant libraries , It seems to have no means of extension according to the preliminary model we are playing with. \That does not seem to be what any of us had in mind when the discussion started. It seems that to be what we call self aware it must exist in a society and be able to also distinguish its thoughts from those of others. That difference in individuals must also be attached to some kind of motivation such as curiosity in order for them to exchange information. That requires the Natural learning method that was assumed no longer useful? with a requirement for information exchange and some socialization from childhood the entities enjoy learning or so it would appear. So why do humans resist Learning after some period of time.? Was there a failure introduced by accident? VIB Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD vbur...@shaw.ca 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2 Canada (204) 2548321 Land (204) 8016064 Cell -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm Sent: February-06-11 3:25 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there Hi Nick, I would say language is the key, it is useful if the robot understands language. A robot usually cannot recognize or perceive itself, if it is not able to understand language. In animals, information about the system itself is so important that it is usually processed and controlled by an own system, the limbic system and the autonomic nervous system, or in other words, largely by emotions. So "information about the system itself" is processed by the limbic system, and "information about other things" by the cerebral cortex. If robots are able to understand things through language, then the point where they start to distinguish "information about the system itself" and "information about other things" is the point where self-awareness begins. To know the self means to know where the self ends, and where the rest of the world begins. -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Nicholas Thompson To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there At what point in the complexity of a robot (or any other control system) does it begin to seem useful to parse input into "information about the system itself" and "information about other things"? Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
