Why couldn't Hellen Keller drive?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Spurred by the book I'm reading, (The Cambridge Quintet (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0738201383/sr=8-1/qid=1140215774/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4333069-1727808?%5Fencoding=UTF8))as well as the one I just finished reading (Goedel Escher Bach (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465026567/qid=1140215814/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4333069-1727808?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)), I've been giving a lot of thought to some of the concepts surrounding AI.

Currently, it's language that I'm pondering. The nature of language, the relationship between language and how we define intelligence, and the dependence of language on sensory interaction with "the world".

Here are a few lines of thought I've got swimming around right now:

* Is communication a necessary component of something that we'd be willing to accept as a machine inteligence? I'm inclined to say no, but with the caveat that the ability to communicate is. Though whether it's a form of communication that we can comprehend seems unimportant.

* Is there a component to language that transcends description. Specifically, is there some ephemeral relationship between a word and the thing or concept it represents in the real world which we are unable to describe using language and therefore cannot be coded in any formal way. From a Goedelian point of view (Goedel proved that any formal mathematical system with sufficient complexity cannot be 100% complete in its ability to describe true statements), this is almost certainly the case. But does that preclude a machine intelligence that truly understands communication?

* Can machine intelligence be "super intelligent" due to it's physical base's inherent computational abilities the way it's often depicted? Or will the only form of machinery which we would be willing to call true intelligence have to exist in such a heirarchical stack of complexity that, just as we have little to no visibility into the physical workings of our own mind, it would have no access to the underlying computational sytems of its own mind?

I'm sure to add more as I collect and organize my own thoughts.

[scaeagles]

Huh? ;)

[innerSpaceman]

What are you on, GD?





(oh, and can you get me some?)

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, and the answers to all three questions happen to be "yes."

[Alex]

What is it about human communication that you consider non-mechanical?

Do you think human level intelligence is required for communcation or do the almost entirely instinctive communcations of insects (such as ants) count as communication?

Before supposing to limit the conceptual self-awareness of mechanical intelligence (if that is, in fact, something distinct from human) is the fact that we have little visibility in the physical workings of our brain an inherent limitation or just something we haven't figured out yet?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

What are you on, GD?



Whatever it is, it would appear that he gave some to Alex.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What is it about human communication that you consider non-mechanical?I never made a claim either way. I'm using "machine intelligence" to distinguish from biological intelligence. I just don't particularly like the term "artificial intelligence".


Do you think human level intelligence is required for communcation or do the almost entirely instinctive communcations of insects (such as ants) count as communication?Yes, I do consider that communication, but I believe there is a difference between such animal communication and human communication. Whether that difference is qualitative or quantitative (i.e., does an ant think in an entirely different fashion, or is it just a matter of degree) is another wrinkle, but I tend to work with the axiom that there is a distinction either way. So to answer your question, if the goal is to match or surpass human intelligence, then I think an AI creation would have to be capable of at least human-level communication (not necessarily in structure, but in concept).


Before supposing to limit the conceptual self-awareness of mechanical intelligence (if that is, in fact, something distinct from human) is the fact that we have little visibility in the physical workings of our brain an inherent limitation or just something we haven't figured out yet?Perhaps an impossible question to answer right now, but I'm going with inherent limitation. It falls into the Goedelian dilemna of a system examining itself.

[innerSpaceman]

I have half a mind to move this thread to "Egghead."











(and no cracks about me having half a mind!!)

[Alex]

I assume you're familiar with J.R. Lucas's Minds, Machines, and Gödel in which he argues exactly what you're pondering: is there something hidden within human intelligence that can not be replicated within the machine mind since the machine mind relies on formal, consistent, and axiomatic systems (where Gödel's incompleteness theory gets invoked)?

If Gödel's theories apply to machine minds but not to human minds for some reason then it must be impossible to recreate human intelligence in a pure machine.

If not, I suggest checking it out though I don't know if it is still in print. You can find Lucas updating his argument from the '60s in this presentation (http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Ejrlucas/Godel/brighton.html) at the 1990 Turing Conference. He makes many of the same points (in a more scholastically rigid form) as Dreyfus.

The underlying assumption of Dreyfus in Gödel Escher Bach and Lucas is that the human mind is self-apparently capable of thinking any thought which is, to a great extent, unprovable. That since a mechanical mind can not be constructed in such as way to not run be constricted by Gödel's incompleteness theorom and we know that that human mind is not similarly bounded, then there is something unique about human intelligence that can not be recreated in mechanical intelligence.

Another issue when thinking about this is if you rely on too much on Dreyfus you'll be stuck in the 20-40 year old thinking on the issue. In recent years (particularly over the last 15), Dreyfus and Lucas's ideas have fallen somewhat out of favor as the Turing model for building artificial intelligence has fallen by the wayside and genetic algorithms and new approaches have been developed (though the Lucas school of thinking is confident they'll still run into a wall).

Of course they may still be right, but if you're looking into the ideas make sure you're reading more recent stuff than Gödel Escher Bach.


I make no claim to know the answer or who is right when I read the debates. I'm just happy if I actually understand the questions they're asking. Personally, I'm pretty comfortable thinking that the human mind does not run into Gödelian limitations if only becaues it doesn't seem to work within a compete consistent axiomatic set which means the incompleteness theorem simply doesn't apply.

I have no idea whether it is technologically possible to build computer logic that also sidesteps the issue though the traditional way of thinking about computer logic as simply binary certainly does seem to run into Gödelian issues.

[Ghoulish Delight]

3 things...

* Lounge Lizard - Discuss philosophy, religion, the meaning of life, what it means to be cool, and anything else you feel like talking about

* GEB is by Hofstedter, not Dreyfus

* Hofstedter actually is quite convinced that the Goedel limitations of the underlying hardware does not preclude intelligence that runs on such hardware.

[Alex]

Whoops, yes. Not sure why Hubert Dreyfus popped into my head. What you say in point 3 is not my recollection of Godel Escher Bach, but it has been about six years since I last read any of this stuff so maybe I'm just all kinds of screwed up in my memories of it.

Now I'll have to go look.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I almost picked up a more recent work by Hofstedter, but it took me eons to get through GEB, so I wasn't really in the mood to keep on that track. Quintet is significantly more contemporary (1998). It's a little bit more on the popcorn side, but has some interesting perspectives.

[Alex]

Now that sounds great (somehow I missed it when last in a phase of reading on this topic though it would have been relatively new when last I was doing so) and I've already ordered it from Amazon.

On a side note, can you imagine the hubris necessary to set out to write about a book that not only presents famous intellectuals as characters but tries to actually accurately present the thought processes of five of the greatest minds of the 20th century? It's good hubris, but certainly hubris I don't have.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On a side note, can you imagine the hubris necessary to set out to write about a book that not only presents famous intellectuals as characters but tries to actually accurately present the thought processes of five of the greatest minds of the 20th century? It's good hubris, but certainly hubris I don't have.If it's good enough for Plato...

[Alex]

True, but with Plato there is no way to know if he did it well or accurately. This guy probably had every historian of science and philosophy prepared to jump down his throat over the slightest gaffe.

[Tramspotter]

Currently, it's language that I'm pondering. The nature of language, the relationship between language and how we define intelligence, and the dependence of language on sensory interaction with "the world

Being disgraphic I have always been fascinated by speech recognition software.

Current off the shelf Speech to text technology using pattern recognition not individual learned dictionaries has stalled out with anywhere from 90% to 95% accuracy their 98% claims are bulsh. I believe IBM no longer is developing for its’ product and dragon dictate who originally broke past the initial limitations is out of business I hear.

I thought when I first started messing around with the technology in the disability centers computer lab at Northridge that it would get: better, cheaper and become regular embedded hardware. I actualy thought this will become completely ubiquitous, then again I guess that people don’t see the value in talking to their toaster. I talk to my rice maker sometimes... And it sings twinkle twinkle little star back to me. Must be that fuzzy logic.

[Kevy Baby]

(and no cracks about me having half a mind!!)We wouldn't give you that much credit :D

[CoasterMatt]

We wouldn't give you that much credit :D
Or that much crack :)