bnevin@CCH.BBN.COM (Bruce E. Nevin) (06/10/88)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 09:35 EDT From: Bruce E. Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com> Subject: Re: human-human communication To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu cc: hbarr@pineapple.bbn.com, bn@cch.bbn.com In AIList Digest 7.24, Hunter Barr <bbn.com!pineapple.bbn.com!barr@bbn.com or maybe hbarr@pineapple.bbn.com> says regarding Human-human communication: HB> I will now express in language: HB> "How to recognize the color red on sight (or any other color)..": HB> Find a person who knows the meaning of the word "red." Ask her to HB> point out objects which are red, and objects which are not, HB> distinguishing between them as she goes along. If you are physically HB> able to distinguish colors, you will soon get the hang of it. This evades the question by stating in language how to find out for yourself what I can't tell you in language. Bruce Nevin bn@cch.bbn.com <usual_disclaimer>
ray@BOEING.COM (Ray Allis) (06/16/88)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 12:20 EDT From: Ray Allis <ray@BOEING.COM> To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Human-human communication In AIList Digest V7 #31, Stephen Smoliar writes: > First of all, NO dance notation provides sufficient information for the > exact reproduction of a movement. Likewise there's not sufficient information in an English description of "red" to impart knowledge to a listener. > Ultimately, I tend to agree with Gilbert that the problem is not in the > notation but in what is trying to be communicated. Video is as valuable > in reconstructing dances as it is in gymnastics, but there is still no > substitute for "shaping" bodies. What Gilbert calls "memory positions" > I have always called "muscular memory;" and I'm afraid there is no substitute > for physical experience when it comes to acquiring it. Your experience with dance notation is illustrative of a characteristic of languages in general, and a seriously flawed assumption in "AI". "Natural" language *evokes* experience in a listener; language can't *impart* experience. No amount of English description will produce the experience of "red" in a congenitally blind person, or a computer, or produce the same quality of associations with "flame" and "danger" and "hot" and "blushing" that a sighted person can hardly avoid. In order for a computer (read digital computer) to "understand" human language, it must have *experience* which the language can evoke. "Data structures" won't do, because they are symbols themselves, not experience. In iconic languages, (e.g. the dance notations you mention) there is a small amount of information conveyed because the perception of the icon itself is an experience. Seeing a picture of a platypus is similar to seeing a platypus. Reading or listening to a description of a platypus is not. Hearing "cerulean" described in English conveys no information, and any "understanding" on the part of the receiver must be *created* from that receiver's experience. It is this line of thought which led me several years ago to discard the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis. Physical symbol systems are *not* sufficient to explain or reproduce human thought and behavior. They are formal systems (form-al: concerning form, eliminating content). The PSSH is, however, a useful guide for most of what is called "AI", which is the mechanization of formal logic, an engineering task and properly a part of computer science. That task has nothing to do with the creation of intelligence. I can certainly understand the irritation of the engineers at people who want to re-think such a job after it's started.
JZEM@MARIST.BITNET (William J. Joel) (06/20/88)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 13:14 EDT From: William J. Joel <JZEM%MARIST.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> Subject: Human-Human Communication To: AILIST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU It seems to me that recent discussion on this topic has been running around in circles. First off, all communication is coded. The types that humans use are merely ways to encapsulate thought so that another human might attempt to understand what the first human meant. In order to truely 'understand' each other we would first have to understand exactly how the brain works ... exactly. Since that's far off, then anything we do is but an approximation.