4 ms·

Ah, now we get into a pretty interesting debate: is there a fundamental difference between human cognition and other animals? But specifically for the horses e

Ah, now we get into a pretty interesting debate: is there a fundamental difference between human cognition and other animals? But specifically for the horses example: I think it would be pretty hard to defend the case that horses have commonsense, unless you use the definition of commonsense as "basic survival skills." Horses can walk around until they find food, and they can run if they see a fast moving object. But I can't think of any examples that seem like commonsense, in the definition of "sound judgment in practical matters." When thinking of it from a bottom-up approach, Rodney Brooks[0] comes to mind. He tried to build rat like creatures in the early 90s, with the goal that modeling rat behavior would enable modeling human behavior. However, the results were unsuccessful, and the implementations did not scale well. (Which is another case for the humans-are-fundamentally-different side of the argument) [0]: https://www.cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall01/G22.3033-012/readings/representation.ps https://www.cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall01/G22.3033-012/readings/...

LionessLover 10y ago
As someone who has a basic neuroscience background, your comment is a sequence of empty statements. > Ah, now we get into a pretty interesting debate: is there a fundamental difference between human cognition and other animals? Actually, that's not an interesting debate at all, unless you like vacuous debates. You will have to be very - very - specific if you want that "debate" to be grounded in actual science. > pretty hard to defend the case that horses have commonsense Given that there is no neuroscience-based knowledge of what "common sense" even means, you are making up your own criteria. I don't even see what point you are trying to make in your last paragraph. > (Which is another case for the humans-are-fundamentally-different side of the argument) Eh.. what? You name some random experiment, don't even say much about it at all, and then try to draw a general conclusion. And of course, as in all your other statements, you refrain from any specifics but remain a "politician", just playing with words that don't mean anything specific.
- kennethfriedman 10y ago
  Thanks for the comment, but let's try to keep this discussion friendly and not ad hominem. I'd politely disagree that my comment was a sequence of empty statements, but allow me to provide some clarifying details that might help your understanding. The debate I describe is actually critical. If humans are not fundamentally different, than the field should be able to model more simplistic animals (such as a rat), and slowly build up to a model of human level intelligence. On the other-hand, if there is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals, then simply modeling other animals will not scale, and will leave the field wanting. I don't think we have to get too specific to debate this. I would point to Winston, Tattersall, Chomsky as three widely respected individuals who present the case that symbolic language (and the uniquely human ability to combine two concepts into a new concept, indefinitely) is the keystone that separates humans from other animals. In your second criticism, we agree exactly. As you can see in my previous comment, I agree that "commonsense" is an arbitrary term. Here, I was simply providing an example of how debating commonsense is not a useful exercise. Finally, in my last paragraph I was providing an example of how attempting to use "simple animals" as a basis for modeling human behavior has not effective. The previous commenter said that we haven't reached "lizard level" and pointed to the OpenWorm project. I pointed to a related project, from Brooks, that had a similar mission. It did not work, perhaps, because modeling simple animals (such as a rat or lizard), won't scale to humans. I did not meant to draw a general conclusion (since I said that it is simply another case, not a proof). As to your final line, let's keep this a lively discussion and not a personal attack.
nnq 10y ago
Nothing to debate. There isn't. Let's stop wasting brainpower on this. Too much empty and meaningless philosophical discussion has unfortunately been revived by recent advanced in ML/AI. This is sad. Especially because I believe philosophy could have a meaningful contribution to the progress of human understanding. It was a "science of interfaces" in the beginning, and now with more and more specialization we also end up with more and more "interfaces" between sub-sub-fields until 90% of everything will be "an interface between something and something else". Too bad we'll have to re-invent it under a different name, and probably disguise it as some sub-sub-field of engineering, to make sure we sever the the connection with all people willing to waste everyone's time with empty-talk and empty-think...
NoGravitas 10y ago
You've never heard common sense called "horse sense"?
- internaut 10y ago
  The original 1 hp self driving vehicles. They too were saddled with drunks and had to know the correct way home without direction.
majewsky 10y ago
> However, the results were unsuccessful, and the implementations did not scale well. Can you define "unsuccessful" and "did not scale well"? From what you've said, I cannot see any relation to the "humans-are-fundamentally-different side of the argument". You just make it sound like a failed experiment, without saying why it failed.

LionessLover 10y ago

As someone who has a basic neuroscience background, your comment is a sequence of empty statements. > Ah, now we get into a pretty interesting debate: is there a fundamental difference between human cognition and other animals? Actually, that's not an interesting debate at all, unless you like vacuous debates. You will have to be very - very - specific if you want that "debate" to be grounded in actual science. > pretty hard to defend the case that horses have commonsense Given that there is no neuroscience-based knowledge of what "common sense" even means, you are making up your own criteria. I don't even see what point you are trying to make in your last paragraph. > (Which is another case for the humans-are-fundamentally-different side of the argument) Eh.. what? You name some random experiment, don't even say much about it at all, and then try to draw a general conclusion. And of course, as in all your other statements, you refrain from any specifics but remain a "politician", just playing with words that don't mean anything specific.

kennethfriedman 10y ago
Thanks for the comment, but let's try to keep this discussion friendly and not ad hominem. I'd politely disagree that my comment was a sequence of empty statements, but allow me to provide some clarifying details that might help your understanding. The debate I describe is actually critical. If humans are not fundamentally different, than the field should be able to model more simplistic animals (such as a rat), and slowly build up to a model of human level intelligence. On the other-hand, if there is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals, then simply modeling other animals will not scale, and will leave the field wanting. I don't think we have to get too specific to debate this. I would point to Winston, Tattersall, Chomsky as three widely respected individuals who present the case that symbolic language (and the uniquely human ability to combine two concepts into a new concept, indefinitely) is the keystone that separates humans from other animals. In your second criticism, we agree exactly. As you can see in my previous comment, I agree that "commonsense" is an arbitrary term. Here, I was simply providing an example of how debating commonsense is not a useful exercise. Finally, in my last paragraph I was providing an example of how attempting to use "simple animals" as a basis for modeling human behavior has not effective. The previous commenter said that we haven't reached "lizard level" and pointed to the OpenWorm project. I pointed to a related project, from Brooks, that had a similar mission. It did not work, perhaps, because modeling simple animals (such as a rat or lizard), won't scale to humans. I did not meant to draw a general conclusion (since I said that it is simply another case, not a proof). As to your final line, let's keep this a lively discussion and not a personal attack.

nnq 10y ago

Nothing to debate. There isn't. Let's stop wasting brainpower on this. Too much empty and meaningless philosophical discussion has unfortunately been revived by recent advanced in ML/AI. This is sad. Especially because I believe philosophy could have a meaningful contribution to the progress of human understanding. It was a "science of interfaces" in the beginning, and now with more and more specialization we also end up with more and more "interfaces" between sub-sub-fields until 90% of everything will be "an interface between something and something else". Too bad we'll have to re-invent it under a different name, and probably disguise it as some sub-sub-field of engineering, to make sure we sever the the connection with all people willing to waste everyone's time with empty-talk and empty-think...

NoGravitas 10y ago

You've never heard common sense called "horse sense"?

internaut 10y ago
The original 1 hp self driving vehicles. They too were saddled with drunks and had to know the correct way home without direction.

majewsky 10y ago

> However, the results were unsuccessful, and the implementations did not scale well. Can you define "unsuccessful" and "did not scale well"? From what you've said, I cannot see any relation to the "humans-are-fundamentally-different side of the argument". You just make it sound like a failed experiment, without saying why it failed.