Your ontology and your motivations are two sides of the…
0 reactions
Your ontology and your motivations are two sides of the same coin; or rather, your ontology is an instrument of your motivations.
In this longer post I address one of the more difficult challenges in philosophy of mind - the connection between conscious reasoning and grounded motivations. I argue that AI systems continue to remain narrow because they are unable to autonomously establish their own ontologies, and that this arises because they excise motivations from their definitions of intelligence.
Along the way, I address a host of related issues, and subsequently establish a tight relationship between memory, awareness, attention, and desires. I suggest that the mental entities we reason with are only created *through* the act of reasoning, not beforehand. I reinterpret the fundamental substance of thinking in the new light of *affordances*. I also deny that *reification* and *identification* are fundamental processes of cognition. I caution against many pitfalls of introspection, and show how these have often mislead researchers in both AI and cognitive science.
Finally, by combining motives and cognition into one unified flow, I undermine the notion of a conscious, active agent overseeing a mental workspace, and make such conscious activity the surface ripples of deeper, underlying systems.
There is a summary of the key steps of the argument at the end of the post.
#science
In this longer post I address one of the more difficult challenges in philosophy of mind - the connection between conscious reasoning and grounded motivations. I argue that AI systems continue to remain narrow because they are unable to autonomously establish their own ontologies, and that this arises because they excise motivations from their definitions of intelligence.
Along the way, I address a host of related issues, and subsequently establish a tight relationship between memory, awareness, attention, and desires. I suggest that the mental entities we reason with are only created *through* the act of reasoning, not beforehand. I reinterpret the fundamental substance of thinking in the new light of *affordances*. I also deny that *reification* and *identification* are fundamental processes of cognition. I caution against many pitfalls of introspection, and show how these have often mislead researchers in both AI and cognitive science.
Finally, by combining motives and cognition into one unified flow, I undermine the notion of a conscious, active agent overseeing a mental workspace, and make such conscious activity the surface ripples of deeper, underlying systems.
There is a summary of the key steps of the argument at the end of the post.
#science
| 1,000 mlx | |
| 1 | |
| 0 |