Selected Newsgroup Message
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Letter to the editor
Date: 18 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
References: <77sven$4uf@ux.cs.niu.edu> <77trt6$bek$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<77tsv0$5ob@ux.cs.niu.edu> <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
X-Trace: 18 Jan 1999 14:04:55 GMT, 166.72.29.245
Organization: SilWis
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
hans.moravec@cmu.edu wrote in message <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert):
>> [Unstructured area mobile utility robots becoming widespread
>> in the next decade] might be. I expect that they will be
>> considered too mechanistic to count as intelligent.
>
>[snip]
>On a logarithmic and development-time scale, robot controllers
>today are more than halfway between the simplest nervous systems
>and human-scale brains. They covered that first half distance
>in about 30 years, and the development slope is actually steeper
>now than in those first 30 years.
>
Although I'm sympathetic to Moravec's position, I guess I also
concur with Rickert's vision. The way toward this better-than-us
electromechanical hominid may be smooth in terms of hardware
progression but I'm afraid we're missing something *very*
important. Although I diverge with Neil's opinions on other matters,
I think he raised a pretty important point, and this is the
distinction between natural and artificial intelligence.
I'll invite him to talk about this, if he will.
Just to exemplify what I'm thinking about this subject, lets
compare today's robots with, for instance, cockroaches. During
their lives, these insects practically don't learn anything at
all, they survive because they have been "designed" by evolution,
which means, only the significant selections remained. So,
they carry a great deal of "evolutionary knowledge". Given a
critical change in Earth's environmental conditions, and
the cockroaches will probably be able to "find a way out"
(through successive generations, obviously).
When we come to analyze robots, we will find that *we*,
humans, are doing the part nature did for cockroaches:
we are the elements that are "designing" them, correcting
and adjusting their mechanisms and software, telling
them what to learn and how to store this information. This
may be a good strategy to produce human-equivalent pieces of
equipment, but I have doubts that it can be *more* than that
(or even good exemplars of the former, for that matter).
To allow robots to "inherit the Earth" (gee, I'm not so
anxious for this :-) we've got to *get out* of the circuit.
And no, I'm not suggesting genetic mechanisms.
With this I mean devise software/hardware that *do not depend*
on us, that allows the robot to grow by itself, not only
in terms of hardware (self-repair or self-construction),
but also *in terms of learning*. The latter aspect, however,
is the essential one.
Maintaining a hardware dependency of the robots on us may
be even valuable (we can have some problems with them). But
they cannot depend on us for learning, if we want them to
be *more* than we are. And this is one of the fundamental
benefits of having them around (which could mean, elements
able to contribute to our welfare with new and creative ideas).
How is this supposed to happen? For all I know today,
there's only one way: robots must learn from basic
sensorimotor patterns. I'm not concerned here with
adaptive movement and coordination of limbs in a 3D
space. I know we're advancing pretty fast on this
aspect. I'm concerned with *cognition from real world
experiences*. We have huge theoretical problems here.
We don't have this link yet. For me, this is our *greatest*
weakness: we do not understand how sensorimotor knowledge grows
into higher level cognition. We do not know why we humans
have a so intellectualized and creative mind and apes don't,
even being *very* similar in terms of sensory and motor
capabilities.
If I was asked to subsume this thought in a single phrase
(its not perfect, I warn), I'd say: we don't know how to
transplant some of Jean Piaget's ideas to robots.
Unless we solve this problem, I think we can wait for 20,
30, 100 or 200 years and we will not have robots the way
we're thinking.
Our main concern today should be how this process work,
and let Intel, AMD and others concern about the packing
density of ICs.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Letter to the editor
Date: 18 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu>
References: <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
"Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net> writes:
>How is this supposed to happen? For all I know today,
>there's only one way: robots must learn from basic
>sensorimotor patterns. I'm not concerned here with
>adaptive movement and coordination of limbs in a 3D
>space. I know we're advancing pretty fast on this
>aspect. I'm concerned with *cognition from real world
>experiences*. We have huge theoretical problems here.
>We don't have this link yet. For me, this is our *greatest*
>weakness: we do not understand how sensorimotor knowledge grows
>into higher level cognition. We do not know why we humans
>have a so intellectualized and creative mind and apes don't,
>even being *very* similar in terms of sensory and motor
>capabilities.
>If I was asked to subsume this thought in a single phrase
>(its not perfect, I warn), I'd say: we don't know how to
>transplant some of Jean Piaget's ideas to robots.
I would say that you are about right. The funny thing is that I do
know (at least in principle) how to transplant Piaget's ideas to
robots. But it turns out that this is unpublishable. The temper of
the times is to argue that Piaget was wrong. (The assumption seems
to be that he just must have been wrong, since his ideas don't fit
well with contemporary philosophy or with AI).
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Letter to the editor
Date: 18 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>
References: <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
<77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu>
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
X-Trace: 18 Jan 1999 21:17:33 GMT, 200.229.240.167
Organization: SilWis
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Neil Rickert wrote in message <77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu>...
>"Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net> writes:
>
>>How is this supposed to happen? For all I know today,
>>there's only one way: robots must learn from basic
>>sensorimotor patterns. I'm not concerned here with
>>adaptive movement and coordination of limbs in a 3D
>>space. I know we're advancing pretty fast on this
>>aspect. I'm concerned with *cognition from real world
>>experiences*. We have huge theoretical problems here.
>
>>We don't have this link yet. For me, this is our *greatest*
>>weakness: we do not understand how sensorimotor knowledge grows
>>into higher level cognition. We do not know why we humans
>>have a so intellectualized and creative mind and apes don't,
>>even being *very* similar in terms of sensory and motor
>>capabilities.
>
>>If I was asked to subsume this thought in a single phrase
>>(its not perfect, I warn), I'd say: we don't know how to
>>transplant some of Jean Piaget's ideas to robots.
>
>I would say that you are about right. The funny thing is that I do
>know (at least in principle) how to transplant Piaget's ideas to
>robots. But it turns out that this is unpublishable. The temper of
>the times is to argue that Piaget was wrong. (The assumption seems
>to be that he just must have been wrong, since his ideas don't fit
>well with contemporary philosophy or with AI).
>
I recently discovered some thoughts of Piaget that I can't agree.
As some report, Piaget seemed to be a Lamarckian and that is
absolutely inconceivable (even in his era).
But this *does not* reduce the merit of the other side of the
story. Yes, I've been realizing that the "temper of the times"
is somewhat against his most important ideas and sometimes
I've come to be very surprised by the high level of the cognitive
scientists who appear to be attacking him, offering as substitutes
"easy to devise" innate methods. The "establishment" seems to be
high in their aspirations, but the higher the position, the
worse the fall. Lets hope we're alive to be present to this
fall. It will be very entertaining.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
From: rpcman@california.com
Subject: neo-Lamarckism (was Re: Letter to the editor)
Date: 21 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7884su$8af$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
References: <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
<77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 159.199.101.1
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 21 21:06:47 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav)
In article <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>,
"Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net> wrote:
> I recently discovered some thoughts of Piaget that I can't agree.
> As some report, Piaget seemed to be a Lamarckian and that is
> absolutely inconceivable (even in his era).
It *may* even be conceivable in *this* era (at least on a very limited scale
involving the immune system). Check out this new book:
http://www.2think.org/lamarck.shtml
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or
Start Your Own
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: neo-Lamarckism (was Re: Letter to the editor)
Date: 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36a8ae62@news3.ibm.net>
References: <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
<77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>
<7884su$8af$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
X-Trace: 22 Jan 1999 16:59:14 GMT, 129.37.183.16
Organization: SilWis
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
rpcman@california.com wrote in message <7884su$8af$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>,
> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net> wrote:
>> I recently discovered some thoughts of Piaget that I can't agree.
>> As some report, Piaget seemed to be a Lamarckian and that is
>> absolutely inconceivable (even in his era).
>
>It *may* even be conceivable in *this* era (at least on a very limited
scale
>involving the immune system). Check out this new book:
>http://www.2think.org/lamarck.shtml
>
Thanks for the link. I guess this subject is still full of heat (as the
more serious Gould/Dawkins debate), although what we see on a close
inspection of the former is a lot of unsuported speculations. We can't
be blind for everything that seems unreasonable at first sight, we
should see these claims under Benjamin Franklin's light ("Nothing
is certain in this world, except death and taxes"). But taking into
consideration the huge and always growing number of evidences,
(and overall coherence), I wouldn't spend more time than a short glimpse
of the eyes over it.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
From: Jim Balter <jqb@sandpiper.net>
Subject: Re: neo-Lamarckism (was Re: Letter to the editor)
Date: 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36A8C595.80B1E275@sandpiper.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
<77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>
<7884su$8af$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a8ae62@news3.ibm.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Sandpiper Networks, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Sergio Navega wrote:
> Thanks for the link. I guess this subject is still full of heat (as the
> more serious Gould/Dawkins debate), although what we see on a close
> inspection of the former is a lot of unsuported speculations. We can't
> be blind for everything that seems unreasonable at first sight, we
> should see these claims under Benjamin Franklin's light ("Nothing
> is certain in this world, except death and taxes"). But taking into
> consideration the huge and always growing number of evidences,
> (and overall coherence), I wouldn't spend more time than a short glimpse
> of the eyes over it.
This flies in the face of what you just wrote:
> >> I recently discovered some thoughts of Piaget that I can't agree.
> >> As some report, Piaget seemed to be a Lamarckian and that is
> >> absolutely inconceivable (even in his era).
"absolutely inconceivable"? That's the road to blind dogma.
In fact, its an absurd contradiction, since you just reported that
Piaget *was* a Lamarckian, so it is conceivable that he was, and
Lamarckianism was conceivable in his era, because he conceived it.
So you seem to mean something else, like "Piaget must have been
incredibly ignorant or stupid to be a Lamarckian" -- well, perhaps so,
but it would require a detailed investigation into his Lamarckian
beliefs and why he held them in order to reach such a conclusion.
I suspect that Piaget's Lamarckianism can be subsumed under something
else you wrote:
> [...] in terms of
> biological change, Baldwin effect has been negligible (so far; if
> genetic engineering proceeds the way it is going, soon we can
> have some surprises). But the effect of culture over our mind
> grew considerably and Baldwin effect seems to be concerned about
> the overall effects of the environment over one species.
The Baldwin effect is not true Lamarckianism, but perhaps Piaget's views
weren't either.
BTW, I doubt that the biological effects of the Baldwin effect have
been negligible. For instance, I suspect that humans' need for
clothing is greater than it was before clothing was invented, and that
there's a causal link.
--
<J Q B>
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: neo-Lamarckism (was Re: Letter to the editor)
Date: 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36a8effa@news3.ibm.net>
References: <77uj8g$ui4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a33f87.0@news3.ibm.net>
<77vtv1$795@ux.cs.niu.edu> <36a3a4ed.0@news3.ibm.net>
<7884su$8af$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36a8ae62@news3.ibm.net>
<36A8C595.80B1E275@sandpiper.net>
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
X-Trace: 22 Jan 1999 21:39:06 GMT, 200.229.240.57
Organization: SilWis
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Jim Balter wrote in message <36A8C595.80B1E275@sandpiper.net>...
>Sergio Navega wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the link. I guess this subject is still full of heat (as the
>> more serious Gould/Dawkins debate), although what we see on a close
>> inspection of the former is a lot of unsuported speculations. We can't
>> be blind for everything that seems unreasonable at first sight, we
>> should see these claims under Benjamin Franklin's light ("Nothing
>> is certain in this world, except death and taxes"). But taking into
>> consideration the huge and always growing number of evidences,
>> (and overall coherence), I wouldn't spend more time than a short glimpse
>> of the eyes over it.
>
>This flies in the face of what you just wrote:
>
>> >> I recently discovered some thoughts of Piaget that I can't agree.
>> >> As some report, Piaget seemed to be a Lamarckian and that is
>> >> absolutely inconceivable (even in his era).
>
>"absolutely inconceivable"? That's the road to blind dogma.
>In fact, its an absurd contradiction, since you just reported that
>Piaget *was* a Lamarckian, so it is conceivable that he was, and
>Lamarckianism was conceivable in his era, because he conceived it.
Jim Balter makes me think I need some classes on rethoric. Or else
he isn't flexible enough to understand what I mean. I guess a little
of both :-)
I meant that I read elsewhere that Piaget was Lamarckian and I thought
that this was sad, because I value so much his thoughts in other
areas. Also, that being Lamarckian circa 1950's was as absurd as being
creationist at that same time. Maybe I should've written this instead
of what I wrote.
Granted, that information came from somebody I have serious problems
with (Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini). So I can accept that his assertion
(Massimo's) could have been a little bit overstated. That prompts me
to keep a point to be further checked.
>So you seem to mean something else, like "Piaget must have been
>incredibly ignorant or stupid to be a Lamarckian" -- well, perhaps so,
>but it would require a detailed investigation into his Lamarckian
>beliefs and why he held them in order to reach such a conclusion.
>
I didn't think of Piaget as being ignorant, maybe misinformed about
what it really means to suppose Lamarck was right. But you're
correct, that info is in need of further investigation. But
what the hell, I'm not on the court of judgment of ancient
thinkers (maybe you are :-)
>I suspect that Piaget's Lamarckianism can be subsumed under something
>else you wrote:
>
>> [...] in terms of
>> biological change, Baldwin effect has been negligible (so far; if
>> genetic engineering proceeds the way it is going, soon we can
>> have some surprises). But the effect of culture over our mind
>> grew considerably and Baldwin effect seems to be concerned about
>> the overall effects of the environment over one species.
>
>The Baldwin effect is not true Lamarckianism, but perhaps Piaget's views
>weren't either.
>
If that's correct, then Massimo's interpretation was wrong too.
By the way, the paper I got this from was:
Ever since language and learning: Afterthoughts on the
Piaget-Chomsky debate
in Cognition on Cognition
Jacques Mehler and Susana Franck (editors), Elsevier (1995)
collected papers from Cognition magazine.
Interestingly, in this paper Massimo has been unusually aggressive
toward Piaget's ponderations (in his conclusion, he sort of
"apologizes" for being so harsh with Piaget). That paper have
been useful for me, because I'm collecting all sort of
positions on the innateness debate.
>BTW, I doubt that the biological effects of the Baldwin effect have
>been negligible. For instance, I suspect that humans' need for
>clothing is greater than it was before clothing was invented, and that
>there's a causal link.
>
I cannot, in principle, rule out what you say. But for me, this is
unlikely. I don't see any way in which clothing could have
increased our dependency on skin covers. I think it is highly
improbable that we're more dependent on clothing than,
for instance, the homo sapiens of 10 thousand years ago.
However, I can concede that clothing may have produced a different
genetic distribution among modern men. Let me try to explain.
The greatest problem here is detecting the things that really
affects genes on long term offsprings. Whatever it may be, the
only transmission method we know is natural selection.
So although it is improbable that clothing would affect
our genetic constituency, it definitely can affect the
survival ability of "problematic humans". Without clothing,
evolution would have privileged only those humans who were
not susceptible to strong influence of the environment
on their skins. But with clothing, those with too sensible
skins may have had an opportunity to generate offsprings.
And this certainly, throughout time, altered the
distribution of skin types (maybe leveling the chances
of both kinds of skin; africans seem to be more
resistant to sun exposure, while germans apparently
are not).
Today we have the majority of Earth's population wearing clothes,
but I doubt that a French baby, if taken to the Amazon forest
and given to an indian tribe who usually are almost naked, would
suffer significantly more than a native baby (to the point of
affecting its chance of generating offsprings). Maybe only on
the long term (hundreds or thousands of years).
But all this is very small next to the importance of the
Baldwin effect. The greatest importance of this effect is,
for me, the driving force in our modern civilization, the
greatest effect on human intellectual advancement, but I guess
with marginal effects in our genetic constitution, other than
more chances for the underprivileged.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
Back to Menu of Messages Sergio's Homepage
Any Comments? snavega@attglobal.net