SpeedOfSound wrote:Now if rocks moved then they may get in the way of the previously calculated path. The SB only has to keep trying until they get out of the way so it's still following it's original direction. If food moved then the SB could do a mini-rotation, first right, then back to true, and then left, to see where it went. Then move again.

The difference here is that we now have WALK as:
walk until food or trouble
on trouble do a random OR planned search and recalc
then proceed.

So the walk is more complex by just a bit.

Is that enough for GOB?

Can we expand on 'calculated path'?

Are you thinking in terms of some x,y position as the 'goal'?
Can we define the goal as 'feed', that might be met at many x,y positions?

If our SB gets stuck (we can define that) then take a random detour, or find another target, or something, and it might not be sound to resume the original heading or head for the original target position.

Then we can think about how the optimisation process might work to balance risk against energy gain. Wht does the SB need to know about itself to do the optimisation?

SpeedOfSound wrote:... I watched cows a lot. I preferred cows to humans, due there straightforwardness, which humans have yet to evolve to.

What makes you think our future is to be grazers?

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:... I watched cows a lot. I preferred cows to humans, due there straightforwardness, which humans have yet to evolve to.

What makes you think our future is to be grazers?

It would be more honest.

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Now if rocks moved then they may get in the way of the previously calculated path. The SB only has to keep trying until they get out of the way so it's still following it's original direction. If food moved then the SB could do a mini-rotation, first right, then back to true, and then left, to see where it went. Then move again.

The difference here is that we now have WALK as:
walk until food or trouble
on trouble do a random OR planned search and recalc
then proceed.

So the walk is more complex by just a bit.

Is that enough for GOB?

Can we expand on 'calculated path'?

Are you thinking in terms of some x,y position as the 'goal'?
Can we define the goal as 'feed', that might be met at many x,y positions?

If our SB gets stuck (we can define that) then take a random detour, or find another target, or something, and it might not be sound to resume the original heading or head for the original target position.

Then we can think about how the optimisation process might work to balance risk against energy gain. Wht does the SB need to know about itself to do the optimisation?

Right now direction to the food that is maximal is sufficient. So no xy is needed. Space is not something the SB has to understand. Which is an interesting thing in itself. It's 'subjective space' is just a line of eight direction slots and two colors and a smell. So it's 'remembered world' is like a strip of varying color and smell.

It could know about it's battery level if we added that to the hunger bit. It would vary if we vary it. If taking a step depleted it by one on a scale of 256.

The first step in an evolution, AND development, would be to randomly thrash on getting stuck. We've given it a suckle instinct so it can eat right out of the box if all goes well. Remember the bacteria that does the random thrash? Also a given instinct. I have called that the Motor or the Mechanic in humans. We wake up and randomly thrash until a need happens then we hit the bathroom.

I was thinking of placing food as a blue stalk structure with green fruit around it's top. First I would see what instinct SB's can do then maybe think about how an SB might learn to walk around the tree top and eat all the food.

But what is the root of all these things? I see that we can add complexity. We can add bits(neurons) and programs(more neurons, but sequentially linked). What is the minimal structure to represent our folk psychologic intuitions and what is the structure of the complexifying additions?

Calculated path is just a direction. Three bits. Doesn't matter if food moves or things get in the way. It's good to know where that food was a moment ago.

Now what if we put that 'where it was a moment ago' in a David Loop?

I used the word subjective above. That can be taken in one of two ways and if you don't get that then you have missed something kind of big.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Now what if we put that 'where it was a moment ago' in a David Loop?

Good idea! That way, it's more likely to be remembered. Otherwise, it could be just a flash that doesn't last long enough to be remembered.

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Now what if we put that 'where it was a moment ago' in a David Loop?

Good idea! That way, it's more likely to be remembered. Otherwise, it could be just a flash that doesn't last long enough to be remembered.

Not so fast!! Everything we remember is not in an active loop. But maybe to RE-member it it has to be.

That said maybe we can now see how easy it is to give our SB a Global Workspace?

SpeedOfSound wrote:Here is your Sorites issue:

We have a first program that is not GOB
We add to the program, one feature at a time until it is GOB.

W figure out what the killer diff is.

Is it that last thing we added?
Or did several additions sum to something greater than the whole? Emergence.

This is an important path. This goes to the lines I keep talking about. Where in the line does it satisfy our intuition for the definitions. Doesn't have to be a point but it sure as hell has to happen Somewhere.

Please respond to this.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Now what if we put that 'where it was a moment ago' in a David Loop?

Good idea! That way, it's more likely to be remembered. Otherwise, it could be just a flash that doesn't last long enough to be remembered.

Not so fast!! Everything we remember is not in an active loop. But maybe to RE-member it it has to be.

Of course everything we remember isn't CURRENTLY in an active loop, only what we are re-remembering, as you say, but if it NEVER was in such a loop, we probably wouldn't have remembered it in the first place. You only need the loop temporarily, to bring something back out of unconscious memory, not permanently, just to keep it there.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Here is your Sorites issue:

We have a first program that is not GOB
We add to the program, one feature at a time until it is GOB.

W figure out what the killer diff is.

Is it that last thing we added?
Or did several additions sum to something greater than the whole? Emergence.

This is an important path. This goes to the lines I keep talking about. Where in the line does it satisfy our intuition for the definitions. Doesn't have to be a point but it sure as hell has to happen Somewhere.

Please respond to this.

I've been talking about the point where we see another system in mentalistic terms as the point where our Theory of Mind brain processes are triggered, and I would stand by that, but it also seems to me now that there are various levels, and kinds, of triggering, as ToM is a fairly messy collection of processes? For example, the only way to predict a person or higher animal at all is to use ToM, as we don't yet have any way of predicting large brains as mechanisms in real time (at any rate for complicated decisions), so we almost always think of them in mentalistic terms. By contrast, a bacterium using the tumbling method of moving up a chemical gradient can be predicted as a mechanism, but it may be quicker and simpler just to predict it as wanting to move up the gradient, so we may see the bacterium as either a fairly complex mechanism or an extremely simple proto-mind. It's not a question of which is correct, it's a matter of which way our brains are processing the bacterium, like a Necker cube.
?

zoon wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Here is your Sorites issue:

We have a first program that is not GOB
We add to the program, one feature at a time until it is GOB.

W figure out what the killer diff is.

Is it that last thing we added?
Or did several additions sum to something greater than the whole? Emergence.

This is an important path. This goes to the lines I keep talking about. Where in the line does it satisfy our intuition for the definitions. Doesn't have to be a point but it sure as hell has to happen Somewhere.

Please respond to this.

I've been talking about the point where we see another system in mentalistic terms as the point where our Theory of Mind brain processes are triggered, and I would stand by that, but it also seems to me now that there are various levels, and kinds, of triggering, as ToM is a fairly messy collection of processes? For example, the only way to predict a person or higher animal at all is to use ToM, as we don't yet have any way of predicting large brains as mechanisms in real time (at any rate for complicated decisions), so we almost always think of them in mentalistic terms. By contrast, a bacterium using the tumbling method of moving up a chemical gradient can be predicted as a mechanism, but it may be quicker and simpler just to predict it as wanting to move up the gradient, so we may see the bacterium as either a fairly complex mechanism or an extremely simple proto-mind. It's not a question of which is correct, it's a matter of which way our brains are processing the bacterium, like a Necker cube.
?

But when it comes to science we have to be correct. Not have fuzzy definitions. They need to be logically sound and based in foundations that are crystal clear. This is my bitch about pop neuroscience and philosophy.

Granted, we have to consider these fuzzy folk terms and concepts and sometimes they are the best we can do.We just can't rust any of it. It's all speculative. Much is simply nonsense.

Take for instance the idea of of a goal being 'in mind' and then some motive to attain that goal with subtasks involving recognition and prediction. When we 'imagine' the human mind we tend to leave out the details and appeal to 'oh shucks, everyone knows what that Thing Is!'. Not good enough. We can develop very simple structural analogs for all of these things to fill in the intuitive cracks.

Starting with the minimal structure you can then add modules to get a bit closer to what is actually going on. To discover what really needs to go on without mucking it up with our folk intuitions.

My experience is that you see things very differently.

I think there are many ways to skin that particular cat and it seems mildly counter productive to me to get hung up on the particular model that gets you there.

BWE wrote:I think there are many ways to skin that particular cat and it seems mildly counter productive to me to get hung up on the particular model that gets you there.

It's not the model that counts. It's the structures and issues that arise naturally from the model. My aim is to stop the circular discussions based on intuitions about our 'minds' and find some logical basis to communicate the real underlying issues. Free will is a damned fine example.

But other ways to skin the cat are always welcome. What ya got in mind?

Let's see if I can explain this another way.

Our brains are a concurrent mess of about twelve systems with hundreds of subsystems. If you start with a very simple brain and start adding systems and size to it you will be moving from left to right on a line. At some point we will want to claim a thing has 'consciousness'. Nowhere on that line did we add anything that is labeled consciousness. It's like an accumulating or an emergence on top of sufficient complexity.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
What is the minimal structure to represent our folk psychologic intuitions

EXTERNAL REALITY : that which exists independent of us even though we actually observe it too

CONSENSUS REALITY : multiple observer verification of what the external reality appears to be

INTERNAL REALITY : subjective interpretation of both the external reality and consensus reality

[ Our Mathematical Universe / My Quest For The Ultimate Nature Of Reality ] By Max Tegmark