From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Oct 11 1999 - 13:10:00 MDT
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Bryan Moss wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > You could say the same about language -- even isolated
> > deaf/mute people will "invent" a language to communicate
> > with.
> > What form does the 'language' of an isolated deaf/mute person take?
Sorry Brian, use of the word "isolated" was poor choice. I'm refering
to deaf people who are not otherwise trained to sign (say in a culture
where "signs" are not known). They will invent a "unique" sign language.
> If it's gestures/noises that correspond to objects I would suggest that
> it serves the same purpose as counting fingers or sketching out ideas,
[snip]
You could go a step lower and look at human ability to read "faces" or
wolves or chimps ability to read "postures" as expressions of emotion
(or intent). I suspect our ability to communicate evolved from a
two-fold selection pressure -- friend or foe determination and
communicating complex "learned" software.
I believe there has also been a gene discovered that seems to
delay the learning of correct verb conjugations and plural
syntax (primarily in males). It turns out to be relatively
"common" (something around 1 in 50) and strikes males more than
females (which accounts for some of the "slow Johnny's" we have
met in our early childhood). I believe that there is still a
fair amount of debate regarding whether Chomsky's theory that
the semantics of language is "hardwired" is accurate.
But I think I would generally agree with Eliezer, that at least
in 2 respects (a) low level emotions/fundamental "drives" and (b) the
ability of our senses to select features and/or assemble patterns is
pretty hardwired. Those will form a common foundation that the
nanobots can clearly latch onto (i.e. gee these neurons always fire
when the color "red" is put in the visual field, these neurouns
always fire when the word "Mommy" is heard). Once you can draw
up the statistical correlation map (and this will not necessarily
be easy), you can backtrack to the "core concept" neurons. Building
up from there you will have the ability to provide very primitive
communications.
Now, when you get up to more abstract concepts like "table" (that
is linked in my brain to all the tables I have ever experienced)
and must therefore be different from all of the tables you have
experienced, you are starting to deal with abstract concepts.
Whether there are core neurons involved in abstract concepts or
whether they are just a "firing patterns" that gets copied around
(as Calvin would argue) isn't clear to me just now. I suspect
at the most abstract and theoretical levels all you are dealing
with is firing patterns. So it will be very interesting to see
*what* I get if my brain can be induced to "play" patterns
produced by Steven Hawking's brain.
There you go, I've just convinced myself that there may be a really
good reason not to go take all the courses I didn't particularly
like to get a degree -- it will be so much simpler to buy the
associated knowledge/patterns in the future. Maybe we should
suggest Robin H. start an idea futures market on pricing for
college course material as "meme-xeroxes".
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:29 MST