Just for the historical record, Phil Agre and I got embodiment from Lucy Suchman and Hubert Dreyfus. Rod came to it independently at the same time (as did Leslie Kaelbling & Stan Rosenschein).
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @puellavulnerata and
When I read Dreyfus, I already had a strong epistemological filter in place, and was only parsing him as: what does he see that everybody else (Turing, Minsky, etc.) is missing? But to read him as primary indoctrination... OMG
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @puellavulnerata and
When I first read Dreyfus, I had completed a math undergrad degree, a master’s degree in AI, and extensive graduate work in mathematical logic. I was not naive…
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz and
The essential insight is not about bodies but about the world: that it is radically unknowable, due to ontological nebulosity, and effective action has to work under that constraint
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @puellavulnerata and
This does not go far enough. The very notion of a world that underlies the premise of embodiment is questionable. The meaning of information is only its relationship to changes in other information, not its reference to facts in the world, even of they are nebulous.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @Meaningness and
The ideas of embodiment lead to anti-representationalism and anti-functionalism. Mind was no longer emergent over the computational activity of a nervous system but over the interaction between somehow non-computational body and environment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @Meaningness and
I don't even see a way to conceive of the existence of non-computational things; everything that exists must be implemented, and computation (which can be characterized by sets of discernible differences and transition functions) is precisely the realm of implementation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Absolutely. I just don't think that mathematical objects exist in an ontological sense. Mathematics is the domain of specifications. Uncomputable physics describes mathematical objects, not ontological ones, but these can be emergent patterns over existing structure.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @Meaningness and
One reason is that we basically know how to create arbitrary sets of finite observations by computation, but have not figured out how to implement even the weakest kind of hypercomputers (which is true as long as quantum computers don't have supremacy).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 9 more replies
-
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.