Re: cognitive != observable? (project three)

"Bill Modlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > I got into this area at precisely that point -- how does a baby (or
> > any organism) make sense of the bloomin' buzzin' confusion of signals
> > and establish reference?
> >
....................
> I also got into this area by wondering how an organism makes sense of
> the buzzing confusion of signals and establish reference.
> 
> I certainly don't take reference for granted.
> 
> I believe I have a good start to a solution, though I can't say that I
> have it fully solved.
> 


Hi Bill, I'm not sure how your proposed solution works, but we have
discussed this issue of reference and making-sense [to some extent] in
the past. Babies instinctually "babble" essentially the entire set of
phonemes present in language. This is built into their brains at
birth, and not learned after birth - as evidenced by the fact that
even deaf babies babble. These sounds are reinforced in hearing babies
by feedback from their parents/etc, and deaf babies eventually stop
babbling because of absence of said feedback. However, their parents
didn't learn these sounds from "their" parents, they were initially
born with this ability too - just like the babies here. There's your
reference.

However, in line with what you say below .... what I've said above is
just the "starting" point towards facility in language in humans, not
the total solution. If your AI starts totally naiively without the
reference given, then it will somehow have to develop it on its own
[in total absense of anything  built-in to compare against] - and out
of the confusing buzz of randomly-appearing external signals.
Presentation of selected learning patterns can help here, of course -
[but then I think you've maybe dismissed this approach ??].


> I would be very much interested in understanding your proposed solution,
> if I can.
> 
> From previous conversations, I think we both feel that the solution
> involves developing appropriate perceptual mechanisms, and that this
> development is driven or guided by observable correlations among signals
> available to the organism.
> 
> Again from previous conversations, I think that our primary difference
> of opinion is that I imagine mechanisms which build on correlations
> among clusters of signals from any source, while you seem to insist that
> the relevant correlations can only be found (at least initially) between
> action signals generated by the organism and the resulting changes in
> sensory input.
> 
> I think we have to build up a lot of perceptual structure before we can
> begin to see the correlations you are talking about, you seem to claim
> that those correlations will be the only ones sufficiently evident at
> first to be useful.
> 
> Would you care once again to explain your solution?  Perhaps somehow
> this time I will understand more of what you are saying.
> 
> Bill Modlin