Why couldn't Hellen Keller drive?

Ghoulish Delight · 02-17-2006, 03:49 PM

Spurred by the book I'm reading, (The Cambridge Quintet)as well as the one I just finished reading (Goedel Escher Bach), 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 · 02-17-2006, 03:55 PM

Huh?

innerSpaceman · 02-17-2006, 05:26 PM

What are you on, GD?

(oh, and can you get me some?)

Motorboat Cruiser · 02-17-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

What are you on, GD?

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

innerSpaceman · 02-17-2006, 05:26 PM

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

Alex · 02-17-2006, 05:47 PM

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?

Ghoulish Delight · 02-17-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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".

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Alex · 02-17-2006, 06:58 PM

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 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.

innerSpaceman · 02-17-2006, 06:30 PM

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

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

Kevy Baby · 02-17-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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

We wouldn't give you that much credit

02-17-2006, 03:49 PM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Why couldn't Hellen Keller drive? Spurred by the book I'm reading, (The Cambridge Quintet)as well as the one I just finished reading (Goedel Escher Bach), 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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

02-17-2006, 03:55 PM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Huh?
	Submit to Quotes

02-17-2006, 05:26 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	What are you on, GD? (oh, and can you get me some?)
	Submit to Quotes

02-17-2006, 05:26 PM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Oh, and the answers to all three questions happen to be "yes."
	Submit to Quotes

02-17-2006, 05:47 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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?
	Submit to Quotes

02-17-2006, 06:58 PM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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 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.
	Submit to Quotes

02-17-2006, 06:30 PM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I have half a mind to move this thread to "Egghead." (and no cracks about me having half a mind!!)
	Submit to Quotes