Re: [singularity] Multi-Multi-....-Multiverse
Can you define what you mean by decision more precisely, please? OK, but why can't they all be dumped in a single 'normal' multiverse? If traveling between them is accommodated by 'decisions', there is a finite number of them for any given time, so it shouldn't pose structural problems. Another question is that it might be useful to describe them as organized in a tree-like structure, according to navigation methods accessible to an agent. If you represent uncertainty by being in 'more-parent' multiverse, it expresses usual idea with unusual (and probably unnecessarily restricting) notation. -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] If men cease to believe that they will one day become gods then they will surely become worms. -- Henry Miller - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90503257-2c3931
Re: [singularity] Multi-Multi-....-Multiverse
On Jan 28, 2008 2:17 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you define what you mean by decision more precisely, please? That's difficult, I don't have it formalized. Something like application of knowledge about the world, it's likely to end up an intelligence-definition-complete problem... -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90505077-ab77a2
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Gudrun: I think this is not about intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via evolution) with senses and body. Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very terms mind and body in this context were splitting up something that can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on that? However casually... The background for me is this: there is a great, untrumpeted revolution going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. See Wiki. That is all founded on the idea of the embodied mind. Cognitive science is based on the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers. Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 and is based on the idea that thought is a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both - and is a science founded on robotics. But the whole terminology of this new science - embodied mind - is still lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90517727-b31b76
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 4:36 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in a purely virtual environment? I think the answer to the above is obvious, but the more interesting question is whether it even makes sense to speak of a mind independent of some environment of interaction, whether physical or virtual. Think agency, folks. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90547696-533cd5
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gudrun: I think this is not about intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via evolution) with senses and body. Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very terms mind and body in this context were splitting up something that can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on that? However casually... I said in so many words Though, even this is kind of wrong, because we behave like there is a split between senses, body and mind. They are more interconnected or however you would like to phrase it. Problem of dualist thinking. The background for me is this: there is a great, untrumpeted revolution going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. See Wiki. That is all founded on the idea of the embodied mind. Cognitive science is based on the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers. Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 and is based on the idea that thought is a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both - and is a science founded on robotics. But the whole terminology of this new science - embodied mind - is still lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough. Mike Embodied Cog sci - is the idea that there is no thought without sensation, emotion and movement . (no mentation without re-presentation..? hmm... still an idea in progress) We need to find ways of reconnecting the pieces that language has dissected. Hey, you're an artist.. do me a photo or model :). - I do videos and installations, perhaps films. I write texts. I invent, too. I think one would have to do what AI people to, invent an embodied AGI, something that has a form of consciousness, senses, movement, body and is really humorous, for a change. Stathis: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in a purely virtual environment? Mike The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that to a child, why do it to a computer? It might be able to spout an encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. As I indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming, backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps mounting. While doing my research, | got the impression that disembodied might be equal or similar to spirit (holy spirit). this comes from religions and religious ideologies and terminology. A disembodied, extracted mind (spirit) also refers to purity. Extract, pure or purified, or a mind in a mind like a voice in one's head. The voice from the aether, radio television signals, all form of disembodied stuff. (Okay embodied via radiowaves and caught in boxes like radios, I am a bit ironic here). I am not sure, if this is about the idea of an extract of purity, something that moves (??) in a purely disembodied world, an idea of an afterlife (again religion), a pure spirit or mind interconnected with whatever is left (I am thinking about what Moravec said, I have to look into my thesis to find his quote). I like it as science fiction, but it also scares me. It seems to me that this disembodied AGI is the product of people who are tired of the burden body, their own bodies. They are tired of a body that screams mortality, while a pure mind might promise immortality. Just some thoughts. I think an analogy to alchemists might not be to far fetched. Gudrun - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90635570-4ef122
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 7:56 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: X:Of course this is a variation on the grounding problem in AI. But do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless of even proximate grounding in any functional sense? Er.. my body couldn't make any sense of this :). Could you be clearer giving examples of the agents/systems and what you mean by absolute/ proximate grounding? I see that you're talking about interaction between systems considered to be minds, and highlighting the question of what is necessary to form a shared basis for **relevant** interaction. I agree that a mind without an environment of interaction is meaningless, in the same way that any statement (or pattern of bits) without context is meaningless. However, I would argue that just as context is never absolute, nor is there ever any need for it to be absolute, indeed for practical (functional) reasons it can never be absolute, embodiment need not be absolute, complete, or ultimately grounded. I use the term system to refer as clearly as possible to any distinct configuration of inter-related objects, with the implication that the system must be physically realizable, therefore it models neither infinities or infinitesimals, nor could it model a Cartesian singularity of Self. I use the term agent to refer as clearly as possible to a system exhibiting agency, i.e. behavior recognized as intentional, i.e. operating on behalf of an entity. It may be useful here to point out that recognition of agency inheres in the observer (including the case of the observer being the agent-system itself), rather than agency being somehow an objectively measurable property of the system itself. Further, the entity which is the principal behind any agency is entirely abstract (independent of any physical instantiation.) [Understanding this is key to various paradoxes of personal identity.] I distinguish between absolute and proximate grounding in regard to the functional (and information-theoretic) impossibility of a system modeling it's entire chain of connections to ultimate reality, while in actuality any system interacts only with its proximate environment, just as to know an object is not to know what it is but to know its interface. To presume to know more would be to presume some privileged mode of knowledge. So in short, I agree with you that embodiment is essential to meaningful interaction, thus for there to be agency, thus for there to be a Self for the mind to know. But I extend this and emphasize that it's not necessary that such embodiment be physical, nor that it be logically grounded in ultimate reality, but rather, that interaction is relevant and meaningful to the extent that some (necessarily partial and arbitrarily distant from reality) context is shared. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90632239-135dac
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 28, 2008 7:56 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: X:Of course this is a variation on the grounding problem in AI. But do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless of even proximate grounding in any functional sense? Er.. my body couldn't make any sense of this :). Could you be clearer giving examples of the agents/systems and what you mean by absolute/ proximate grounding? I see that you're talking about interaction between systems considered to be minds, and highlighting the question of what is necessary to form a shared basis for **relevant** interaction. I agree that a mind without an environment of interaction is meaningless, in the same way that any statement (or pattern of bits) without context is meaningless. However, I would argue that just as context is never absolute, nor is there ever any need for it to be absolute, indeed for practical (functional) reasons it can never be absolute, embodiment need not be absolute, complete, or ultimately grounded. I use the term system to refer as clearly as possible to any distinct configuration of inter-related objects, with the implication that the system must be physically realizable, therefore it models neither infinities or infinitesimals, nor could it model a Cartesian singularity of Self. I use the term agent to refer as clearly as possible to a system exhibiting agency, i.e. behavior recognized as intentional, i.e. operating on behalf of an entity. It may be useful here to point out that recognition of agency inheres in the observer (including the case of the observer being the agent-system itself), rather than agency being somehow an objectively measurable property of the system itself. Further, the entity which is the principal behind any agency is entirely abstract (independent of any physical instantiation.) [Understanding this is key to various paradoxes of personal identity.] I distinguish between absolute and proximate grounding in regard to the functional (and information-theoretic) impossibility of a system modeling it's entire chain of connections to ultimate reality, while in actuality any system interacts only with its proximate environment, just as to know an object is not to know what it is but to know its interface. To presume to know more would be to presume some privileged mode of knowledge. So in short, I agree with you that embodiment is essential to meaningful interaction, thus for there to be agency, thus for there to be a Self for the mind to know. But I extend this and emphasize that it's not necessary that such embodiment be physical, nor that it be logically grounded in ultimate reality, but rather, that interaction is relevant and meaningful to the extent that some (necessarily partial and arbitrarily distant from reality) context is shared. Vow, this is well worded, structured in a really nice set of feedback loops. What is a non physical embodiment. I would like to know more about this. If we have a form of embodied AGI (with all the definitions and descriptions above, even a non physical one not being grounded in an ultimate reality), and there is space for movement/motion (see other posts and definitions for movement), has anybody thought about DESIRE. How could desire come into this. What kind of mind is desirable? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90638550-c0e5be
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vow, this is well worded, structured in a really nice set of feedback loops. Some like my writing very much; others find it off-putting. I tend to err toward excessive abstraction, expecting that others will ask for supporting detail and/or clarification as desired. I think I'm correct in this expectation, but significantly off in my estimation of the extent of the desire. ;-) What is a non physical embodiment. I would like to know more about this. Simply put, non-physical embodiment refers to an instance of mind functioning within an abstract computational environment as opposed to the physical environment we commonly assume. It's worthwhile to note, however, that from a necessarily subjective viewpoint, one cannot reliably discern the degree of abstraction of one's environment from actual reality. [Thus my scare-quoting of the term reality as it can be referred to but never defined.] Note also that a computational environment does not necessarily entail a simulation, although these concepts are commonly conflated in this forum. If we have a form of embodied AGI (with all the definitions and descriptions above, even a non physical one not being grounded in an ultimate reality), and there is space for movement/motion (see other posts and definitions for movement), has anybody thought about DESIRE. How could desire come into this. It seems to me that in coherent, systems-theoretic terms, desire refers to perceived distance between an agent's internal values-complex and the perceived state of its environment. So intentional action serves simply to reduce this perceived distance to zero (via execution of more or less intelligent internally encoded instrumental principles.) To the extent that the relevant aspects of this interaction can be said to be fully specified, then the desired future state can be called a goal. What kind of mind is desirable? Non-sequitur. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90654113-309ea5
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 6:43 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in a purely virtual environment? The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that to a child, why do it to a computer? It might be able to spout an encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. As I indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming, backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps mounting. Of course this is a variation on the grounding problem in AI. But do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless of even proximate grounding in any functional sense? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90569120-23ee79
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 9:43 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in a purely virtual environment? The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that to a child, why do it to a computer? Whew. That's... let me count... eleven anthropomorphic comparisons in one paragraph. You cannot use anthropomorphic thinking when dealing with AIs. An AI is more different from you than you are from a yeast cell. Both yeast cells and humans, after all, share the same basic biochemistry and the same design process (natural selection). Humans and AIs do not. It might be able to spout an encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. This is precisely what unintelligent computers do. You're describing the behavior of an unintelligent system, not an AGI (or even a modern-day AI). AI can already do much better than this. In 1999, computers were composing music, poetry, art, and literature, all without any kind of robotic apparatus. As I indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming, backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps mounting. At this point, you're starting to sound like the creationists. Any day now, you know, they're going to present hard, peer-reviewed evidence for intelligent design. Any day now... - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Tom - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90811106-19bcc6
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 7:16 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gudrun: I think this is not about intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via evolution) with senses and body. Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very terms mind and body in this context were splitting up something that can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on that? However casually... The background for me is this: there is a great, untrumpeted revolution going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. embodied cognitive science gets 5,310 hits on Google. cognitive science gets 2,730,000 hits. Please back up your statements, especially ones which talk about revolutions in any field. See Wiki. That is all founded on the idea of the embodied mind. embodied cognitive science gets 520 hits on Google Scholar, as compared to 296,000 for cognitive science. Many individual researchers have published more papers than this (Euler and Erdos come to mind). Cognitive science is based on the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers. Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 Please stop posting audacious claims without any evidence. Cog sci is a huge field, with thousands of full-time researchers worldwide. and is based on the idea that thought is a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both Please stop posting audacious claims without any evidence. - and is a science founded on robotics. Name one case when attaching a robotic apparatus (of any sort) to a computer gave it additional intellectual capacity. But the whole terminology of this new science - embodied mind - is still lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Tom - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90838229-e3f9cd
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On 29/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 4:36 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in a purely virtual environment? I think the answer to the above is obvious, but the more interesting question is whether it even makes sense to speak of a mind independent of some environment of interaction, whether physical or virtual. Could that just mean in the limiting case that one part of a physical object is a mind with respect to another part? -- Stathis Papaioannou - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90839892-81029c
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Tom:embodied cognitive science gets 5,310 hits on Google. cognitive science gets 2,730,000 hits. Please back up your statements, especially ones which talk about revolutions in any field. Check out the wiki article - look at the figures at the bottom such as Lakoff co Google them. Check out Pfeiffer. Note how many recent books in philosophy, psychology and cognitive science are focussing on embodiment in one way or other. Check out the Berkeley/ California configuration of these guys. Check out morphological computation - and the relevant conference. Check out Ramachandran: Without a doubt it is one of the most important discoveries ever made about the brain, Mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology. They will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious... Read Sandra Blakeslee - The Body has a Mind of its Own - also just out. [She did Jeff Hawkins before]. Even s.o. like Ben, if you track his development - he can correct me - is using embodied more and more - and promoting virtually embodied AI's. Unlike most mainstream cog. sci. , the embodied version, you'll find, really is scientific and has a commitment to scientific experiment and testing of its ideas. It's as I said an untrumpeted revolution but if you think about it, it's inevitable. Just try thinking without sensation, emotion and movement. Brains in a vat are fine for philosophers but they just haven't worked for any kind of AGI, or any of the faculties that AGI needs. [And stay cutting edge). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90868213-6926fc
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On 29/01/2008, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that to a child, why do it to a computer? It might be able to spout an encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. How can you tell the difference between sensory input from a real environment and that from a virtual environment? -- Stathis Papaioannou - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90867376-c56f6a
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On Jan 28, 2008 6:48 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom:embodied cognitive science gets 5,310 hits on Google. cognitive science gets 2,730,000 hits. Please back up your statements, especially ones which talk about revolutions in any field. Check out the wiki article - look at the figures at the bottom such as Lakoff co Google them. Check out Pfeiffer. Note how many recent books in philosophy, psychology and cognitive science are focussing on embodiment in one way or other. Check out the Berkeley/ California configuration of these guys. Check out morphological computation - and the relevant conference. Quite frankly, I don't have the time to go reading through an entire field of stuff simply to prove a point. Check out Ramachandran: Without a doubt it is one of the most important discoveries ever made about the brain, Mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology. They will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious... Mirror neurons *do* seem like an important discovery in cognitive science, but they're specific to humans (and other animals with complex nervous systems), not to intelligences in general. The general principle (look at another system and copy its behavior) can be applied just as easily to purely electronic systems as physical ones. Remember COPYCAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_%28software%29)? Read Sandra Blakeslee - The Body has a Mind of its Own - also just out. [She did Jeff Hawkins before]. The author is a professional writer, not a scientist, and has no published papers that I can find. To quote from the front page of the book's website (http://www.thebodyhasamindofitsown.com): Your body has a mind of its own. You know it's true. You can feel it, you can sense it, even though it may be hard to articulate. You know your body is more than just a meat-vehicle for your mind to cruise around in, but how deeply are mind, brain and body truly interwoven? This is clearly 'pop sci' writing, probably with little technical content. Even s.o. like Ben, if you track his development - he can correct me - is using embodied more and more - and promoting virtually embodied AI's. Unlike most mainstream cog. sci. , the embodied version, you'll find, really is scientific and has a commitment to scientific experiment and testing of its ideas. Please stop posting audacious claims without references. Claiming that all of cognitive science is unscientific, while some small subfield is scientific, certainly qualifies as audacious. It's as I said an untrumpeted revolution but if you think about it, it's inevitable. Just try thinking without sensation, emotion and movement. Brains in a vat are fine for philosophers but they just haven't worked for any kind of AGI, or any of the faculties that AGI needs. [And stay cutting edge). See http://www.singinst.org/upload/LOGI//foundations.html. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Tom - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90874087-bdefc8
