Re: death of the mind.

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:12:36 GMT

Traveler wrote:
> In article <bO4Yc.85304$mD.58426@attbi_s02>, patty
> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Wn3Yc.84892$mD.15932@attbi_s02>, patty
>>><pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree. When one process (A) in some context (C) is causally related
>>>>to another process (B), then it is useful for the *sake of analysis* to
>>>>say that A represents B to C.
>>>
>>>
>>>No. It is not useful for the sake of analysis. In fact, it is
>>>detrimental to a sound analysis of the mechanisms of intelligence. It
>>>is distracting. The whole point of general intelligence is the
>>>irrelevance of the particularities of the environment. The
>>>universality and homogeneity of the neural cell structures that
>>>process stimuli from the environment is proof.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But please note that *we* the analyzer
>>>>are using this hypothesized relationship, it is beauty in our eye only,
>>>>and not something in C.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. And this is precisely why it is not important to understand
>>>intelligence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That some elite of the EAB *insist* that for us
>>>>to use this concept, there must be something found in C, is a straw-man
>>>>argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>No. It is not a strawman argument. It is a warning that looking at
>>>intelligence from the point of view of knowledge representation is
>>>dangerous because it distract from the real problem which is in need
>>>of a solution. More than fifty years of GOFAI's chasing after a red
>>>herring should have taught us a lesson.
>>>
>>
>>Representation may certainly be a distraction for your particular
>>gestalt. But i think it is fundamentally flawed to think that the
>>explanation and artificial manifestation of intelligence will fall to a
>>single paradigm.
>
>
> Why? Aren't all intelligences of the type: behaving system or agent?
>

evolution, technological progress, hive, Alife, Internet, ....

>
>>Also there are many types of intelligence.
>
>
> Oh yeah? And what may those be? The only type of intelligence we have
> is animal intelligence. As far as I can tell, they're all pretty much
> the same type of intelligence. They all fall under the category of
> stimulus/response agents with the usual appetitive/aversive mode of
> behavior.
>

Ask yourself how much of what people do which we call "intelligent
behavior" is actually something that their culture is doing?

You could measure patty's IQ ten years ago ... just the individual
animal called "patty" .... now measure her IQ today while she uses the
Internet. What changed? Where did the extra intelligence come from?

>
>>There is
>>the type of intelligence which we are within rather than the type of
>>intelligence which is within us.
>
>
> This stuff is highly subjective. Precise definitions of 'we', 'us'
> 'I', etc..., are hard to formulate. Besides, I see no connection with
> types of intelligences.
>

They are not hard to formulate, we can draw these boundaries anywhere we
like for the sake of our analysis or for the sake of our associations.
The trick, when we are involved, is to see past our own biases.

>
>> We need different concepts for
>>difference types of intelligence and different paradigms to explain
>>them. If those other concepts are not useful to your particular
>>paradigm, well then just ignore them.
>
>
> I suggest you read this paper and forever reject the notion that we
> consult some sort of internal model of the world around us:
>
> www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/people/riegler/papers/riegler01anticipation.pdf
>

I guess my system is working, i went to download that and found out i
had already read it. But you mis peg me. I am not a model in the head
freak. Now, anticipation .... that is something that is hard to deny.
Here is the definition of mind, that i am toying with:

   Mind is the faculty which allows us to reenact
   previous experience and to piece together fragments
   of previous experience to practice future behavior.

Do i need to modify it to explicitly include anticipation ? If so, how?

patty

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New paradigm of introspective OO development
    ... > of serious programming work experience, ... and less to talk of "new paradigm". ... Formalization is essential, imho, ... Ideas are always worth exploring - keep in mind that fixing ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: New paradigm of introspective OO development
    ... > of serious programming work experience, ... and less to talk of "new paradigm". ... Formalization is essential, imho, ... Ideas are always worth exploring - keep in mind that fixing ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: thinker thought for your brain ((((((:::::::::))))))
    ... paradigm we'll also start to see development of our lives and others ... science fiction that someone chases in the lab to all of a sudden find ... a breakthrough and search for a way to put that breakthrough into ... has going through their mind. ...
    (rec.music.phish)
  • Re: Code To Make Trial Version Software Release
    ... >>They simply covered it with the sharpie and thus the drive could not ... >The mind boggles.... ... The paradigm example being people taking video cameras into film ...
    (alt.comp.lang.borland-delphi)