On 28 Jan 2008, at 22:31, Thomas McCabe wrote:
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.
I do understand anthropomorphic comparisons as something we do best. It
is so difficult to envisage 'the other"
Like the yeast cell comparison. But have to point out, that we share
DNA with it.
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.
I know about some of these art stuff. I thought that DADA was more
interesting. Or look into the Situationists.
Nevertheless, it will become interesting when the art-generating
artificial (G) intelligences start appreciating each others art
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...
I am sure Mike can defend himself. For me, he does not sound like a
creationist.
I would like to postulate that some AGI creators work with the mind and
the soul of creationists.
Isn't it rewarding to re-create god's work. Create a new species. (By
the way, I am an atheist).
I have a quote from Pamela McCorduck : "AI is a godlike enterprise, I
said in the first edition, and I stand by that."
(McCorduck, Pamela. Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the
History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence.
Natick, MA: A K Peters, 2004.)
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/?&;
- 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/?&;
-2bf0b9
-----
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=4007604&id_secret=90991299-f5a886
