| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| public:t720-atai-2012:constructivistai [2012/12/05 09:31] – thorisson | public:t720-atai-2012:constructivistai [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| ======A New Constructivist AI ====== | ======What is Constructivist AI? ====== |
| |
| Common sense tells us that if we were born with no sensory organs -- //at all// -- then we would be unlikely to develop a normal, healthy, fully-capable mind. The idea that perception is a necessary prerequisite for thought and intelligence has been at the center of epistemology for centuries. In the 1600s René Descartes, thinking about thinking, and what reality really is, as well as his own place and existence in it, came up with the phrase **Cogito ergo sum** -- //I think, therefore I am//. This was not just a phrase, it was a philosophical stance and conclusion that still permeates all deep thinking about thinking. A unique idea was that knowledge was constructed by the mind: If the wax that a candle is made from can so radically change shape and appearance, yet still be understood as "the same stuff", then that had to be a process of //thinking// -- since the perceptions were not enough to inform of this. And so thinking moved to the center stage, in the form of //reasoning//. | Common sense tells us that if we were born with no sensory organs -- //at all// -- then we would be unlikely to develop a normal, healthy, fully-capable mind. The idea that perception is a necessary prerequisite for thought and intelligence has been at the center of epistemology for centuries. In the 1600s René Descartes, thinking about thinking, and about what reality really is, as well as his own place and existence in it, came up with the phrase **Cogito ergo sum** -- //I think, therefore I am//. This was not just a phrase, it was a philosophical stance and conclusion that still permeates all deep thinking about thinking. A unique idea was that knowledge was constructed by the mind: If the wax that a candle is made from can so radically change shape and appearance, yet still be understood as "the same stuff", then that had to be a process of //thinking// -- since the perceptions were not enough to inform of this. And so thinking moved to the center stage, in the form of //reasoning//. |
| |
| Descartes proposed a dualist theory, of mind and physical reality, where the mind is "immaterial" and interacts with the physical world through a particular part of the brain. One problem with this theory is that if the mind is immaterial, then how does it interact with the body that it obviously controls? Descartes proposed that the mind interacts with the body through the pineal gland in the brain. He was right about the brain being important for thought. George "Bishop" Berkeley took this one step further and said that we are nothing more than sensations, since sensations are the only information we have about this thing we call "reality". One problem with this view, pointed out by his critics, is that if something is not being observed it essentially does not exist, since all reality is created by the minds that perceive them. Berkeley did not despair but came up with an ingenious answer (but which most would now call silly), and this became the heart of his proof for the existence of God. The concept is nicely captured in this funny limerick: | Descartes proposed a dualist theory, of mind and physical reality, where the mind is "immaterial" and interacts with the physical world through a particular part of the brain. One problem with this theory is that if the mind is immaterial, then how does it interact with the body that it obviously controls? Descartes proposed that the mind interacts with the body through the pineal gland in the brain. He was right about the brain being important for thought. George "Bishop" Berkeley took this one step further and said that we are nothing more than sensations, since sensations are the only information we have about this thing we call "reality". One problem with this view, pointed out by his critics, is that if something is not being observed it essentially does not exist, since all reality is created by the minds that perceive them. Berkeley did not despair but came up with an ingenious answer (but which most would now call silly), and this became the heart of his proof for the existence of God. The concept is nicely captured in this funny limerick: |
| So far, intelligence in this new formulation is thus the ability of a system to autonomously increase its own ability to control states of its environment, to achieve its goals. But we need more than that, the system must be able to generate subgoals autonomously. | So far, intelligence in this new formulation is thus the ability of a system to autonomously increase its own ability to control states of its environment, to achieve its goals. But we need more than that, the system must be able to generate subgoals autonomously. |
| |
| Any system that capable of cognitive growth must be capable of some sort of self-evaluation, otherwise it will not be able to decide whether certain milestones in its growth are being reached, or whether changes made in light of experience have been for the better. The self evaluation must in fact be of a particularly powerful kind, compared to most constructionist approaches to such evaluation that we could cook up, because large parts of the system's knowledge, as well as the architecturo-cognitive mechanisms that produced them, must be able to serve as the subject of such an evaluation. In its most extreme case the whole architecture evaluates its present state in light of past state(s): | Any system capable of cognitive growth must be capable of some sort of self-evaluation, otherwise it will not be able to decide whether certain milestones in its growth are being reached, or whether changes made in light of experience have been for the better. The self evaluation must in fact be of a particularly powerful kind, compared to most constructionist approaches to such evaluation that we could cook up, because large parts of the system's knowledge, as well as the architecturo-cognitive mechanisms that produced them, must be able to serve as the subject of such an evaluation. In its most extreme case the whole architecture evaluates its present state in light of past state(s): |
| |
| <m>Psi~=~{f_m}~(Psi_{t-n})</m> | <m>Psi~=~{f_m}~(Psi_{t-n})</m> |
| Given a pattern <m>#</m> and a perception <m>P</m> process of agent <m>A</m>, then | Given a pattern <m>#</m> and a perception <m>P</m> process of agent <m>A</m>, then |
| |
| <m> P^A </m> ( <m>#n</m> ) | <m>P^A</m> <m>(#n)</m> |
| |
| is the perception by agent <m>A</m> of pattern <m>#n</m>. | is the perception by agent <m>A</m> of pattern <m>#n</m>. |
| |
| <m>C^A</m>: A set of cognitive process of an agent <m>A</m>. <m>P^{A}subset{C^A}</m>. | <m>C^A</m>: A set of cognitive process of an agent <m>A</m>; <m>P^{A}subset{C^A}</m>. |
| |
| <m>d^A</m>: A decision process of agent <m>A</m>. <m>d^{A}subset{C^A}</m>. | <m>d^A</m>: A decision mechanism of agent <m>A</m>; <m>{C^A} right d^{A}</m>. |
| |
| <m>B^A</m>: A set of actions or behaviors of agent <m>A</m>. <m>B^{A}subset{C^A}</m>. | <m>B^A</m>: A set of actions or behaviors of agent <m>A</m>; <m>C^{A} right {B^A}</m>. |
| |
| ====== ====== | ====== ====== |
