We say intelligence is the capacity to solve problems in many environments. Phrased as the mechanisms of computing system’s equilibrium implies e.g. that it isn't an optimization task (as in DL today). Which equilibrium? How? Are the current tasks in this theory of intelligence
-
-
Replying to @Abel_TorresM @Plinz
I would go further and say that even the capacity to qualify an event as a 'problem' and to be able to attempt to cause events that are qualified as 'solving' it requires intelligence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right. Just that animals are capable of solving problems without conceptualizing them; so the abstraction required for reasoning is not dependent on symbolic language even when benefits a lot from it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Abel_TorresM @S33light
Not sure about that. Planning requires discretization of sequences of events, objects and scenes in ways that are essentially conceptual (just not linguistic).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Correct. I abused 'conceptualization' as abstractions we can describe with words. Animals can manipulate abstract representations to solve problems. Moreover, our linguistic constructs are ultimately converted into those to acquire meaning (the reason pure NLP is empty)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Abel_TorresM @Plinz
What I'm looking at I think is even more primitive than abstraction. Prior to representation, there must be a presentation of perceptual content such that direct intervention is experienced as possible and desirable. Intelligence as a refinement of will.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @S33light @Abel_TorresM
No, there is no "presentation". Before representation, there are only patterns. Representation creates the structure, as a way to explain the patterns.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I think that the explanation of affect as configuration of a cognitive system, and of emotion as directed affect is adequate. For experience, see this presentation, for instance:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3K5UxWRRuY …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
I don't think it is expressed well in the book or the theory (and Dörner himself seems to think that the hard problem is the easy problem). In the talk, I try to point out that the solution is that we don't live in the physical universe to begin with, and never gain access to it.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @EFJetFighter and
We find ourselves in a dream, and a dream character can dream that it is conscious. The dream is generated by a physical system, which is itself not dreaming, but modeling. We are inside of the model.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
How do you know that the dream isn't just nested within another dream, which it approximates as a physical system? (or as I think, a dream nested within a dream>dream>dream>dream>dream that it approximates as zoo>bio>organo>chemo>physical systems)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.