Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Working memory capacity, traces of thoughts ... - continuation of the thread on G+ "Strong Artificial Intelligence" [Continues]


Todor Arnaudov's answer to Randall Lee Reetz at ...


No theory at all? I don't think so. I'm sorry if some of the words/terms sound "embarassing" - it's not "politically correct", but are facts called with true names. That's just measures of intelligence, emotions is what humans often see as the most important though and lose the rest (not the method, but your "existential ..." if I rephrase you).

There's rather no theory in the short statements - where is it in 10 words (what's their purpose at all), it suggests super short attention span - first of all. These ones don't have internal "physics" and structure, to name one, and scarcely refer to anything specific, or it's just a term or two or some general claim.

My comment refered to a bunch of specific concepts and works (I could extend it), and there is even inter-sentence structure/comparisons - for example the difference between the span of the intelligence which is one of the reasons for misunderstanding/impossibility for understanding - Einstein vs Schumacher.

As of the "too many words" - one of the reasons why some people don't understand each other. Incompatible bandwitdhs limitations/impatience/grounding/experience/..., another implied by the above is that they can't follow each-other thoughts.

...

Turing machine is too simple a model, it's "exhausted" of material and obvious at a glance, - more structure is needed, such as:

Randall: "a small intelligence advantage. - ... the question is why?"

Todor:

The comment gives some answers, which at a level of verbal short expressions (...) is what one can get.
So it's about:

- Working memory capacity (in narrow cognitive science sense that's the 7+-2 thing, and in more general sense that's the span of the focus, the amount of data one can process in a chunk/a step/a moment, or can hold for longer for processing without refering to external sources);

- The exent of the connections between the levels of cognitive hierarchy, the lossyness/how much is lost between the levels; the extent of assymetry of bottom-up to top-bottom; the availability of access to the different levels of abstraction of sensory records from the different sensory modalities (one who doesn't recognize musical tones cannot understand a melody or a chord or a symphony as a composer who does);

These connections are related to the defined more than 200 years ago hierarchy of Reason(concepts, most abstract, most general, executive function; serial, small capacity)--Facculty of judgement-Understanding(simulation of the causal forces of the Universe)-Input (external and internal).

All of the above is related to the capability of grounding and understanding of grounding, how much one operates with a model of the Universe or just doing blind calculations without understanding;

-- Facculty for imagination, related to "Visuo-spatial sketchapad" capacity, fantasy; that's connected with the WM capacity, the visual hierarchy and grounding as well.


">>a small intelligence advantage. ... the question is why?"

First of all, it may be not small, but "on/off" - such as missing connections/"facculties" to learn in the appropriate sensory-motor data chain, making you incapable to understand operationally for example painting or dancing or playing the piano. Humans possess "general intelligence", but only humanity as a whole with all the technologies has "versatile intelligence", or as I call it: Versatile limitless self-improvement capability. Individuals do not have truly general (versatile) intelligence, they are bottlenecks somewhere in the brain that make humans unable to learn in some of the modalities or inter-modally beyond most mundane levels, compared to the talented ones.

Second - due to the hierarchical/heterarchical nature of brain/mind, and also the working memory limitations, there might be "fire walls", "valves" where conceptions cease to grow - for example the mind cannot hold all of the required samples at the same time in order to see the causal relation.

Third - you're right that time matters, that's one of the dimensions of the scope/span of the attention, both in narrow term related to consciousness and in wider - a topic that you may investigate and revisit for a year, a decade, for life, and to see from new points of view over and over again. This is related to non-cognitive forces as well such as lower biological needs; to distractability, to the development of the mielin in your brain, to your life situation.

However time doesn't help when there are "interrupted" connections (such as sensory modalities data) or insufficient working memory, which in the human brain is not unlimited.

For example, one reason why some people cannot understand Kant thoughts is that they couldn't keep in mind some of the sentences, or just keeping their vocal representation in the loop overloads their mind so they can't think also about the implications, or see the connection to the following sentences or the past ones.

Again, Schopenhauer has actually talked about that issue in the chapter for the "Essential limitations of the intellect" in "The world as Will and Idea", volume two, ch. 15 - that the highest thoughts/consciousness/Reason is in time, sequential and in order to think of something else, the previous thought should be removed, and only some traces should left, that allow to keep the trace, the direction, the trend, and the rest should go deeper. If one doesn't have enough resources to keep the traces alive, to "bear in mind", she would lose the point and would see the thoughts/sentences/concepts as "unrelated".

If that is applied for a long chain of operations and if the results of the operations can be output and stored outside so that they doesn't need to be born in mind anymore and can run on their own without human understanding (technology, machines) or can be encoded in a cheaper and faster memory such as the premotor cortices/cerebellum as motor programs available on demand without loading the precious consciousness resources) - then a huge abyss grow between people and apes, and between humans who're talented/trained and the rest.

Also there are fields where you can go deeper while still keeping the "trace/connection" foot-print low - that's in the highly formal logical chains where the truth of the rest is not questioned, or if you do calculations. Eventually it has to be mapped/connected to some grounds, like the axioms in Euclidean mathematics and the initial conditions of the problem, which are considered "obvious/proven".

So as long as you have enough of memory to bear in mind, you can run for centuries and produce new results; if you don't - you're left as an ape and the gap grows. Some apes or monkeys (don't remember the species) for example would warm themselves if they found a fire, but they would not throw pieces of wood in the fire to keep it going. Also, apes are known to use tools, but not to use tools for creation of new tools - insufficient resources. Similarly as the children grow, their capacity to bear in mind items grow, as the lenght and the complexity of the sentences they can produce or comprehend.

...

As of the citation from Einstein - let me send it in the previous century. In "Paregra and Paralipomena" (if I'm not mistaken), S. emphasizes the fact that the ordinary people have "very short thougts", in other works also he mentions that the difference between a genius and a "blockhead" might have an endless amount of intermediate steps, but in essence it's only quantitative and in the extent, the ingenious ones see the world more distinctly and clearly and are able to focus/concentrate all of their mental energy in one spot, they can be "objective", detached from the "Will", the biological "self interest" such as social ranking/status, money, sex etc. The average people cannot concentrate and think or analyze experience for the sake of it, they are too much concerned with their personal interest which distracts them and keep them for focusing.


As of some more "scientific" evidences for the working memory stuff:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Working+memory+predicts+G-factor&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&conversationid=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=working+memory+G-factor+1990&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=working+memory+g-factor+1990&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=7a4cc15d3587478aabef5b422e824dad

Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14,
389–433

THE UBIQUITY OF MENTAL SPEED AND THE CENTRALITY OF WORKING MEMORY
Reply to Conway et al. on Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?intelligence-g-factor.37

A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual
items and toward structured representations

http://web.mit.edu/~tkonkle/www/PAPERS/Brady_2011_JOV.pdf
Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.006

In the abstract of the above: "The capacity for simple visual features is highly correlated with cognitive ability."


http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(13)00126-5#MainText


Regarding time again - it's discussed in the theories of Hawkins (in On Intelligence), of Boris Kazachenko, of neuroscience - the time needed for the sensory input to go to the PFC - images shown for too short time like in the editing in TV and modern action cinema only "fly-through" mind and do not get critically analyzed or steadily remembered. See also the biophysics, researchers on the "ADD" of current society, which is caused largely by watching television, Indeed, the claim that it is a (legal) drug is made by "official" scientists, there are hypotheses that the rise of the drug-addictions in the 60-ies is due to the growing up of the first TV-breed generations. The fast-changing images promote novelty-seeking/dopamine "shortcuts" and addiction, and people become more susceptible to catch addiction from chemical drugs. If you do not believe that, see for example a summary of the research through the decades by the Romanian researcher: http://www.helikon.bg/books/153/-Телевизията-и-детето_153788.html.

My own theory refers the extent/level of understanding also to the amount of time (for deeper, superficial, so that's "real-time physicist" or theoretical physicist etc.). That's the resolution of perception and causation in the dimension of time, respectively related the level of generalization/the span of data records or the prediction period in the future and the levels of detail.


To reiterate something else on the "small advantage":


I believe "small" has to be defined better and more convincingly as a meaningful concept in order to make sense. In Chaos Theory they use to say that "a small difference in the initial conditions may lead to a big difference in the final state". "Small and big" are too definitive, but they are vague. For example in a textbook they once said "1 mm difference of the position of a sled, may lead to 60 m deviation at the end of a slope".

Big? It's just 60000 times the initial difference.
One may say the opposite: it's rather a small change, bearing in mind that the distance between two molecules is bigger than the difference between the initial and the end condition (in orders of magnitude), and that the position depends obviously on all the path and the obstacles and details that the sled has to encounter until arriving at the end - so it's not just the difference in the initial conditions (relative position from a previous run), it's the whole situation and the initial unknowness of the complete situation with appropriate/sufficient resolution of detail that leads to the apparently "big" difference.


Somebody having wrong/unclear/low resolution model getting excited about being unable to predict the results "as he thought he should have been able", instead of criticizing/correcting/enriching/... his model.


#####

And yet another answer to that arrogant and short-memoried guy, insulting me, but giving food for a good post, enjoy! :D

Todor Arnaudov

4:58


Randall, I would rather suggest you do it. I had a written and published theory far more clear than yours (matching in some points) when I didn't even have a moustache. However yeah - I'm a far quicker typist than you, obviously...

[http://research.twenkid.com/agi_english/ - see the slides
http://research.twenkid.com/agi_english/
http://research.twenkid.com/agi_english/Todor_Arnaudov_Theory_of_Hierarchical_Universal_Simulators_of_universes_Eng_MTR_3.pdf
http://research.twenkid.com/agi_english/Teenage_Theory_of_Universe_and_Mind_4.pdf
http://research.twenkid.com/agi_english/Teenage_Theory_of_Universe_and_Mind_3.pdf
]

As of some more "scientific" evidences for the working memory stuff, let me repost it to your insult:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Working+memory+predicts+G-factor&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&conversationid=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=working+memory+G-factor+1990&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=working+memory+g-factor+1990&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=7a4cc15d3587478aabef5b422e824dad

Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14,
389–433
THE UBIQUITY OF MENTAL SPEED AND THE CENTRALITY OF WORKING MEMORY
Reply to Conway et al. on Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?intelligence-g-factor.37

A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual
items and toward structured representations

http://web.mit.edu/~tkonkle/www/PAPERS/Brady_2011_JOV.pdf

Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.006

In the abstract of the above: "The capacity for simple visual features is highly correlated with cognitive ability."

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(13)00126-5#MainText

You don't understand because you don't care or if you do perhaps have
too short working memory for that kind of presentation - one of the serious reasons why people don't understand/care for each other, explained in details in the posts, as well as in referring scientific publications.

You mistake "science" with "limited working memory" (to the extent that you accept).


Yes, science (as well as philosophy, as well as evolution of the Universe in some of its aspects) is about optimization, compression, shortening.

However there's a limit beyond which you start to lose detail and turn to too general, of which you cannot induce anything more , or lack grounding.

There's no cell made of one molecule.

Some of your claims - see them in my theory (for example) among others - published decade(s) or more ago, by a kid.

However they are too general and confused said that way - that's something that John points out.

The "evolution" should be defined more distinctly. For example I agree about the evolution of the Universe as a whole, however at the same time John is right that there are "sub-Universes" - the individuals whose goals are not always synchronized with the overall trend, not all the time.

The individual is a sub-universe aiming at his own goals. And within an individual, there are other subuniverses which also have conflicting goals and struggle to overcome the others.

Boris Kazachenko has concepts called "Conserved core" and "Adaptive interface", that is related to the concept of "Meta-System Transitions" of Vladimir Turchin. That's about evolution in more articulated form of expression, not in one sentence.

The overall results produce the evolution of life and Universe.

At a higher level of an individual there's the genus - which is also having its interests that are above the interests of the individual, but below those of the Evolution (of life) as a whole, or Evolution of universe as a whole (humans and technology destroying living forms, species and genus being eliminated from existence).

Your claims alone, even when agreed on, are not operational in that form.

You need to add more specific and "physical", that is causal, details to "run" it - something that needs more words than most people use to take in one "bite".

And one "philosopher" such as Schopehnauer had 3500-4000 pages worth of incremental and all-directional proves of one-single thought. You have - how much, a half page with words only.

No comments :