Well Gentlemen,
I must pause and read more of the Gombrich /Gibson dispute. Jochen started all this … I learned long ago to be fearful of little ideas and silly questions.
Curious that the principals all seem to have some experience with aerial imaging. I was also an aerial photo interpreter for a spell and used both aerial and later false color satellite images in creating maps.
Life never progresses in straight lines as we childishly expected.
It is not uncommon to learn to do something and be unable to explain how you were accomplishing the task. Perhaps this is rather more common than not.
Thank you all.
Curiosity is still a problem even after all the investment into disabling it.
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2
Canada
(204) 2548321 Land
(204) 8016064 Cell
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: February-08-11 6:42 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there
Eric, You wrote, paraphrasing Gibson,
that there was no easy distinction between exteroception and proprioception).
Yes BUT….
Some of that information from the world is more useful to predicting what I am going to do and other information is more useful for predict what other things are going to do. I agree with JimL’s point that simple navigation at sea can be pursued in an egocentric manner, but as the Hutchins book makes clear, precious little in navy navigation is actually done that way.
Nick
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:32 PM
To: Vladimyr Burachynsky
Cc: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there
I'm not sure whether it matters to this discussion, but James Gibson (famous perceptual researcher) claimed there was no information about the world that was not information about the self (or in psych-parlance, that there was no easy distinction between exteroception and proprioception). Perception of "the orientation of a surface," for example, is always perception of "where I am," similarly perception of "me falling" is also the perception of "the ground moving towards my head."
Eric
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 05:06 PM, "Vladimyr Burachynsky" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Jochen said" "information about the system itself" and"information aboutother things" is the point where self-awareness begins " Perhaps this thought is perhaps a little overly compacted. Information aboutself does not require language, indeed awareness of the outside world doesnot require language. If both are in place language does not ariseautomatically. It does seem that a model of the world mapped out ofperceptions must exist and another symbolic map linking all images ofreality to meanings and to verbal symbols most also be in place. There is still a lot of wiggle room about when self awareness emerges. Iam going to assume no human being is born knowing the language of it'sparents. That requires that an individual interact to begin learning thethings in its environment and the symbolic sounds and meanings. So the mostcomplex brain on the planet spends some 2 or more decades learning languagesbit by bit. Perhaps self awareness is a continuum not an actual object.Through language games the individual constantly redefines the state of selfawareness. That machine Mind we are hypothesizing apparently inherits the completelibrary of outside things as well as the libraries of symbols and meaningsand does not require the prolonged tutoring of humans. This is actually avery radical concept with some very peculiar consequences i.e. An entitythat requires no childhood or social connections yet is fully capable ofcommunicating with every other member immediately. I suspect that suchentities would not actually be social entities. They may be coldlyindifferent or exploitative of each other. Also these entities would nothave the ability to adapt should the environment change quickly. If it is not already defined in all the relevant libraries , It seems tohave no means of extension according to the preliminary model we are playingwith. \That does not seem to be what any of us had in mind when the discussionstarted. It seems that to be what we call self aware it must exist in asociety and be able to also distinguish its thoughts from those of others.That difference in individuals must also be attached to some kind ofmotivation such as curiosity in order for them to exchange information. Thatrequires the Natural learning method that was assumed no longer useful? with a requirement for information exchange and some socialization fromchildhood the entities enjoy learning or so it would appear. So why dohumans resist Learning after some period of time.? Was there a failureintroduced by accident? VIBVladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD [hidden email] 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2Canada (204) 2548321 Land(204) 8016064 Cell -----Original Message-----From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On BehalfOf Jochen FrommSent: February-06-11 3:25 AMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee GroupSubject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there Hi Nick, I would say language is the key, it is useful if the robot understandslanguage. A robot usually cannot recognize or perceive itself, if it is notable to understand language. In animals, information about the system itself is so important that it isusually processed and controlled by an own system, the limbic system and theautonomic nervous system, or in other words, largely by emotions.So "information about the system itself" is processed by the limbicsystem,and "information about other things" by the cerebral cortex. If robots are able to understand thingsthrough language, then the point wherethey start to distinguish "information about the system itself" and"information about other things" is the point where self-awarenessbegins.To know the self means to know where the self ends, and where the rest ofthe world begins. -J. ----- Original Message -----From: Nicholas ThompsonTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee GroupSent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:29 PMSubject: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there At what point in the complexity of a robot (or any other controlsystem)does it begin to seem useful to parse input into "information about thesystem itself" and "information about other things"? Nick ============================================================FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's Collegelectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |