Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

Roedy Green wrote:


(I was aware of it, but not of any details.)

Important at this point is a description of what was the "secret" and how was dolphin B tested for it.

Important here is what they looked for. E.g. did they check for such things as phase shift. Wouldn't surprise me at all that a sonar-using creature would be expert at using phase shift.

The difference I believe I see is what I pointed out before. Spend a year with even an isolated prisoner who speaks another language, and you'd be able to communicate pretty darn well. I do recognize that part--even a large part--of that is due to shared *human* experience, but I don't believe all of it is.
It might be much harder with, say, aliens that had just landed, but I'd bet you that after a year we'd communicate fairly well.
That just doesn't happen with animals. After nine years with the same animal, we understand each other pretty well in the very limited area where we do communicate, but the absense of real communication is very apparent.
[sigh] But I'd give a lung (and a kidney) to spend nine years with a dolphin. :-( I envy you your experience with them!
--
|_ CJSonnack < snipped-for-privacy@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:57:54 -0600, Programmer Dude

When I was working on this in 1979 we were doing simple fourier transforms and looking at them.
People speculated about phase, also that possibly the language could even be holographic -- painting a sonic picture of sorts.
Funding with pretty sparse. The people doing most research are the Navy who use dolphins to deliver explosives.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Roedy Green at snipped-for-privacy@mindprod.com wrote on 12/10/03 4:16 PM:

"Barn owls, which are especially good at localizing prey by acoustic cues alone, have timing difference thresholds as low as one microsecond. There is no question that the temporal information essential to these discrimination tasks is carried in the phase locking of the auditory nerve, and in the case of the barn owl it has been possible to identify the neural circuits responsible for making the precise temporal comparison between phase locked spikes coming from the two ears. For a review of the work, see Carr and Konihisi (1990).
from "Spikes: Exploring The Neural Code", Rieke, Warland, de Ruyter van Steveninck, Bialek.
The paper referenced is:
Carr, C. E., and M. Konishi (1990) A circuit for detection of interaural time differences in the brain stem of the barn owl, J. Neurosci. 10, 3227-3246.
Rieke et. al. also discuss echolocation in bats (and give plenty of references), but nothing on dolphins.
-- Michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:57:54 -0600, Programmer Dude

Have you read Pinker's The Language Instinct? (Amazon.com product link shortened)
It argues our grammar is hard wired. There are just a few tweaking configuration parameters. It would be a bit much to expect some other species to deal with it without the hardware.
The communication schemes of cetacea may be equally inaccessible to us because we lack the wetware.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Roedy Green at snipped-for-privacy@mindprod.com wrote on 12/10/03 4:19 PM:

This summary of a 400 page book, itself a popular summary of much more voluminous technical work, might overstate a wee bit what Pinker argues. "Hard wired" is a bit much, but aside from such quibbles I'm sure you'll find universal agreement on usenet with Pinker's thesis. ;-)
I'm waiting for the collected works of Nim Chimpsky, but in the meantime "Wild Minds: What Animals Really Think", M. Hauser is a strong alternative to reruns of "The Simpsons".
-- Michael

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another simple definition of intelligence could be that which successfully analyzes cause and effect.
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Gardener schrieb:

My best definition at this moment is:
autonomous sufficient fast generation of usefull rules =====
Herman sometimes thinking of intelligence working at the same principles like human beings
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Intelligence is:
Not stepping into this massively cross posted thread.
Mike
ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

intelligence
this
[Zagan] I agree, as R. Steve Walz said, "The discussion is about the _definition_ of intelligence!"
Here's my definition (at least as it pertains to robotics): Intelligence is the ability to gather data and make decisions based on that data. In this context, is has nothing to do with human consciousness or awareness. We are talking about machine intelligence. Even simple collision detection is a form of intelligence. Even my TV has simple intelligence since it "knows" how to respond to signals it receives from my remote control.
Intelligence has nothing to do with consciousness or self-awareness. Although this thread is cross-posted, I am replying from "comp.robotics.misc" and my reply is based on the context of that forum.
// Jim
--
|| Free Science Fiction
|| "The Keepers of Forever"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What a confident assertion.
I must disagree. Higher order intelligence might necessarily give rise to consciousness which includes self-awareness function.
To treat consciousness as a "useless add-on" to intelligence reminds me of Cartesian dualism if nothing else.
Then, you would believe that Chalmers's philosophical zombies may exist. I would disagree with that! Human consciousness is not separate from intelligence! It's functionally another form of intelligence, a collection of higher cognitive functions which we label consciousness...
Regards,
-- Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[Zagan] I was not speaking of "higher order intelligence." I was speaking of the intelligence we are able to program into our robots, and limited my context to that of "comp.robotics.misc."
I do expect that sometime in the future, our computers/machines will achieve consciousness and self-awareness. A discussion of this would be appropriate for "comp.ai.philosophy," but my comments referred to "current" technology.
One could say that a sensor providing data to a robot is a form of consciousness, but I prefer to avoid the term since it is often mistaken for self-awareness. I refer to this as "intelligence" since input data must be analyzed and an action taken depending on the input.
I stand by my definition of intelligence as the ability to receive input and make decisions based on that input, (e.g., stimulus/response).
Current robots and computer programs do this all the time, but that does not imply the robot or program is "self-aware." Intelligence does not imply consciousness, and consciousness does not imply self-awareness.
You are correct within the context which you used to reply, but incorrect within the context of the post I made.

[Zagan] I don't remember commenting on this issue.

[Zagan] Eray, I agree with your words in general. A biological being that has evolved to the point of possessing consciousness and self-awareness, will certainly have intelligence. My point is simply that a machine can respond in an intelligent manner to input, and consciousness or self-awareness is not required. Remember, we are talking about machines, not biological entities.
Best Regards,
// Jim
--
|| Free Science Fiction
|| "The Keepers of Forever"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, I am correct in both contexts. I don't think you have even understood my statement. It applies to both intelligent robots and biological creatures.
To think of consciousness as an unnecessary add-on is an outdated philosophical view known as epiphenomenalism. According to this naive view, a robot could be as intelligent as a human being, yet wholly lack consciousness. (ie. like philosophical zombies of Chalmers)
It is neither the case that consciousness consists of "sensory hum" of input signals. Consciousness seems to be mediated by specific information processing in humans.
To believe that the study of robotics is somehow isolated from science of consciousness is another serious mistake. Furthermore, your definition of intelligence says nothing about intelligence except that it seems to be a mathematical function of some sort with sensory input and effector output.
I contend that consciousness is *universally* a necessary part of higher order intelligence as it is comprised of several fundamental cognitive operations (such as elevating the priority of a function approximation process, etc.) which we collectively label consciousness (ie. I believe that C is a suitcase word as Marvin Minsky defines)
I refer you to Edelman's distinction of 1st order consciousness from 2nd order consciousness and Minsky's distinction of reactive thinking from reflective thinking.
Take reflective thinking away from a human-level intelligent robot, and you remain with a dumb reflex agent.
[snip]
Thanks,
-- Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eray Ozkural exa wrote:

---------------------- It's neither "outdated" nor is it "naive", those are merely your own jealous opinions. There is NO proof that a robot cannot be constructed to react as a human would react in all cases, given enough processing and program, and yet NOT be conscious!! All that programming has to do is last its lifetime. Other more complicated programming than ours can do what consciousness as an invention is able to do with far less overhead. We are conscious simply by the evolutionary fact that the overhead to accomplishing our nature is more easily done with the very deep and narrow engine of Awareness, and its attendant products, than it would be with a much more broad but shallow; massive high cost PLD, which would have MUCH more weight, and slightly less adaptibility over speciel life but not individual life. But tven if it took more than 100 times our mass to host such a huge PLD-brain, Evolution would do that, if only it wasn't cheaper and better to do what we must do by being Aware.

--------------------- No, by an agency that OVERSEES that info processing!

--------------------------------- Oh, I do too, but just not that it is the only way to achieve the same complex behavior in a Non-Conscious robot.

--------------------------------------------- Yes, without a much more massively complex behavior governor.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
R. Steve Walz wrote:

He has a point here Eray. You did not prove your point. Maybe it is possible to create an artificial construction that yields pretty much the same results as a brain, but is constructed on a totally different design that has no need for (and therefore will not have) the higher order introspective processes our brains seem to have.

See, all kinds of overseers that oversee just their own little domains, but not a comprehensive integral overseers that would be the expression of the "I" (the selfconsiousness). Maybe that is possible, but then again maybe not. Any analogs in the real world? Businesses maybe? Can you say a business is a conscious organism? Any thoughts on this?

Where?
regards, Marvin
--
Objective reality is a synthetic construct, dealing with a hypothetical
universalization of a multitude of subjective realities - Philip K. Dick
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5 Jan 2004 16:33:32 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote or quoted :

I won't accept this on blind faith. You have not given any evidence yet.
If I watch a movie of someone, they go through all their actions, yet no body is conscious inside the figures flickering on the screen.
Consciousness is a WITNESS. I don't see why the same calculations could not go on just as well WITHOUT a witness.
For example, people talk and move while under anaesthesia, but are not conscious, or at least have no memory of consciousness.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roedy Green wrote:

I don't think I agree with you on this. If consciousness where merely a witness why does it exist at all? I think it is an essential part of the processing, not just a witness, but I don't know how you would define consciousness...

The no-memory-of bit is not enough of an argument. I once had an accident with a bike of which I cannot remember anything, but I was certainly consious then, since people told me I was very abusive towards them right after the fall.
regards, Marvin
--
Objective reality is a synthetic construct, dealing with a hypothetical
universalization of a multitude of subjective realities - Philip K. Dick
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
manicmarvin wrote:

-------------------------- Awareness is a cheap way to get around the need for an otherwise very extensive bit of programming to undertake some very complex responses for what might seem otherwise as present for no reason. Nature found that the cheap way to do it on an ongoing basis was to install a self-modeling witness as internal planner in the device. It may not do the perfect thing, but it does enough things right that it is okay, for now, like most evolved structures.

------------------------ The motion isn't important, what the person will be again later, is!

------------------------- We protect the unconscious being who has previously been conscious. We do so because it is the continuity of self-awareness, or the apparent continuity of Selfness, even interrupted by sleep or unconsciousness, that we value as the key ingedient the OurSelf. We do NOT protect the not-yet-been-conscious, i.e., fetuses.

-------------------------- Yup.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess I picked this email because it touched upon issues that I was thinking about....language.
It seems to me that there is for most a direct conduit between language and intelligence. On that point lets look at the history of intelligence. Take for example the enlightenment and the romantic era. Here we saw the basis for all our bases of thought now. Eg Descartes..I think therefore I am ( the duality of self), Kant and the duality of consciousness ( now used in human rights and international relations discourse...discussing the categorical imperative- meaning even if we do wrong, there is a universal right in all of us and we choose to stray from waht we believe is right). And then we have romantic influences such as Rousseau who began the whol;e nature/nurture debate.
These foundations are obviously very complex. What has always perplexed me is the very important question of whether abstract concepts and philosophising is solely in the domain of human thought. I often think of artificial intelligance, and think that we pass on abstract concepts(mathematical equations and analysis) to computers- Is that not language?
I guess my question is this- Are emotions a prerequisite to intelligence? OR is intelligance a pure objective science? And finally- If animals have intelligence- Why don't they fight back to what we are doing to the planet? Is their intelligance created merely in communities? Perhaps if they are mammals(gregarious)- then intelligance is created on a smaller scale?
ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:50 GMT, "Patrick Mulligan"

The counter example here is the orangutan which spends much of its life in solitary. Its intelligence is mainly used to compute routes to food. It solves some very complex puzzles in maximizing calories for effort.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.