• Qmeri
    208
    The main reason we have not been able to replicate human conversation with computers is because we use mirroring in human speech. This means that we trust that our phrases cause almost the same associations in the minds of the participants of the conversation. And then we just have to modify these associations a little to understand one another.

    The problem is that our associations are dependent on almost everything that makes up a human mind. They are affected by the mood of the situation, how things look like, what the current events are and how they affect the particular group that is talking, our human needs and priorities and other things that are very particular to human programming.

    This causes that our speech works only between systems that have almost the same human programming so that the phrases cause almost the same associations. We can see this even between humans of different cultures. Even if the cultures speak the same language, it becomes hard for them to understand each other if the phrases and contexts cause different associations in those cultures.

    Because of this:
    A - we will never have a fluent conversation with aliens unless they are programmed almost exactly like us.
    B - we will not program an AI that can speak human in the foreseeable future because we don’t have the empirical knowledge of how human mind is programmed to replicate that programming in an AI and thus enable the AI to use mirroring.
    C - if a single human changed his programming in a major way (for example by emphasizing logic in his thinking beyond normal) he would gradually lose his ability to fluently communicate with other people unless other people changed at the same rate.

    Not that this means that we can’t communicate in any way in these situations. Logical languages like mathematics are still a way to communicate even without mirroring.
  • Qmeri
    208
    This also means that the Turing test is a bad test for general intelligence. It just tests whether or not something is programmed in way that can closely replicate human programming.

    It's probably an inefficient and unnecessarily complex way to achieve general intelligence in a transistor based system to try to replicate the programming of a particular neuron based system that we know has a huge amount of unnecessary quirks and flaws. This is why we should remove human speech from the list of things we are trying to make our general-intelligence-AIs to be able to do.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    The problem is that our associations are dependent on almost everything that makes up a human mind. They are affected by the mood of the situation, how things look like, what the current events are and how they affect the particular group that is talking, our human needs and priorities and other things that are very particular to human programming.Qmeri

    Well put, but I don't see why all aliens must lack in ability of human-like mirroring. Some aliens may have had experiences and developments in their evolutionary past that are similar to human experiences and developments. This is what you need to show is impossible. I don't think this can be shown in an a priori manner.
  • Qmeri
    208
    Well put, but I don't see why all aliens must lack in ability of human-like mirroring. Some aliens may have had experiences and developments in their evolutionary past that are similar to human experiences and developments. This is what you need to show is impossible. I don't think this can be shown on an a priori manner.god must be atheist

    I'm not actually saying that no aliens are similar enough to use mirroring with us - just that us coming into contact with those particular very rare aliens would be so improbable that in practice it will never happen. Although, I guess we will never have to be in live contact in order for them to learn our language. Still I think those aliens would be so rare, that even the recordings we leave will never be discovered by them.

    The text even specifies that "unless the aliens are programmed almost exactly like us".
  • aporiap
    223
    Not every association is human specific. A bee, a rat. a dog, and a human all have to navigate around the front door of a house to get in a house. They all represent that door as a barrier of some kind. If it were possible for them to converse, that door and it’s association as a barrier of a sort is completely conceivable as common between all three.

    the point is many objects in the world, even with some difference in senses, are commonly perceivable, and many of the problems faced by different kinds of life overlap so it makes sense the vocabulary and language of those organisms, if existent, would also overlap enough to allow communication. I don’t see why an alien, that can sense, and perceive us and our surroundings and ascribe value to those different things, couldn’t communicate with us in terms of those things
  • Qmeri
    208
    I'm actually talking about fluent conversation here - like what would pass a Turing test. But I do agree, that while it would always be slow and awkward, we could use the pre-existing words and phrases to communicate about things common for us. A lot of time would be used to deal with all the extra wrong associations and unmeant ways of approaching the common subjects, but some of our associations would be common and useful. In anything complex it would be much more useful to use something without mirroring.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The main reason we have not been able to replicate human conversation with computers is because we use mirroring in human speech. This means that we trust that our phrases cause almost the same associations in the minds of the participants of the conversation. And then we just have to modify these associations a little to understand one another.

    The problem is that our associations are dependent on almost everything that makes up a human mind. They are affected by the mood of the situation, how things look like, what the current events are and how they affect the particular group that is talking, our human needs and priorities and other things that are very particular to human programming.

    This causes that our speech works only between systems that have almost the same human programming so that the phrases cause almost the same associations. We can see this even between humans of different cultures. Even if the cultures speak the same language, it becomes hard for them to understand each other if the phrases and contexts cause different associations in those cultures.

    Because of this:
    A - we will never have a fluent conversation with aliens unless they are programmed almost exactly like us.
    B - we will not program an AI that can speak human in the foreseeable future because we don’t have the empirical knowledge of how human mind is programmed to replicate that programming in an AI and thus enable the AI to use mirroring.
    C - if a single human changed his programming in a major way (for example by emphasizing logic in his thinking beyond normal) he would gradually lose his ability to fluently communicate with other people unless other people changed at the same rate.

    Not that this means that we can’t communicate in any way in these situations. Logical languages like mathematics are still a way to communicate even without mirroring.
    Qmeri

    Perhaps of some relevance is our ability to "understand" animals. I don't know how much we've progressed in the the field of animal communication but there are some various clearly unambiguous expressions e.g. a dog's growl that we seem to have understood. As to whether we can extrapolate animal-human communication to human-alien exchanges is an open question.

    Personally, if the universe is really uniform as we assume then language would be either visual or audio based which narrows the possibilities sufficiently to permit alien-human communication.

    However, as you mentioned, we know for a fact that human languages are unintelligible to each other and the distance between human languages is likely much much less than between human languages and alien languages.

    If I understand what you mean by "mirroring", it plays an important part in when the subject of discussion is privileged in some sense i.e. there exists a certain association that isn't common knowledge and it's that particular link you want to convey. Under such circumstances communication can break down but this are rare occasions otherwise how on earth are people able to make sense of each other? Civilization would collapse if this problem just a tad more common.

    Unfortunately, depending on your outlook, "important" discourses are highly susceptible to the "mirroring" problem. For instance in difficult subjects we need to make the right association and that may be difficult especially for novices and even experts.

    So, you're right in that alien- human communication maybe harder than imagined but I'm going to bet my money on the "higher" intelligence of ET to see us through that roadblock.
  • Qmeri
    208
    If I understand what you mean by "mirroring", it plays an important part in when the subject of discussion is privileged in some sense i.e. there exists a certain association that isn't common knowledge and it's that particular link you want to convey. Under such circumstances communication can break down but this are rare occasions otherwise how on earth are people able to make sense of each other? Civilization would collapse if this problem just a tad more common.TheMadFool

    The mirroring isn't just about associations which can be learned. It's also about the way things are just processed by the brain of your species. For example, if your brain processes visual information by prioritizing colours first and then using that information to find lines of contrast, the resulting associations in your system will differ from systems which use brightness to find lines of contrast. And when the millions of these systems that create a human mind end up creating our particular associations, the probability that an alien will have a system capable of learning similar enough associations for the mirroring we use in our language is almost zero.

    This is why we can't just define the correct associations for a given word or phrase and expect an AI or another species to be able to use it. The underlying programming that ends up choosing those associations in any given context in humans is as complex as the human mind itself and therefore we don't even ourselves know it. And therefore we can't teach it.
  • Qmeri
    208
    Perhaps of some relevance is our ability to "understand" animals. I don't know how much we've progressed in the the field of animal communication but there are some various clearly unambiguous expressions e.g. a dog's growl that we seem to have understood. As to whether we can extrapolate animal-human communication to human-alien exchanges is an open question.TheMadFool

    A good point. But we have to understand that our evolutionary history with animals is not just similar - it is for the large part the exact same history. And it is also a history where we share a common environment, where evolution has simply created ways for different species to communicate things like "danger" or "no threat" or acceptance for each other.

    Because of this, we can "understand" animals and communicate with them in certain simple things with this simple interspecies mirroring. (Not even sure if this is mirroring, since the same associations don't seem to come because of similar programming, but because we have learned them from other sources.) Nothing as complex as our language could be used between things with such major differences in programming though.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    If I understand correctly then your "mirroring" argument depends on the multitude of ways information may be transmitted through any given medium of communication. I'm not qualified to comment on that but if evolution is true then there must be some logic to how our senses, input/output devices, evolved. We can look at the communication systems in humans, presumably the highest intelligent lifeform and examine how they evolved. A fair estimate would be that such systems evolved to maximize information carrying capacity e.g. color discerning ability gives us access to more information than just light-shade contrast vision.

    If that's the case then, evolution on other planets would also evolve in a similar enough way that would make communication systems of all life in the universe converge rather than diverge. This would mean that, contrary to your argument, "mirroring" ability among lifeforms in the universe may not be so radically different to each other to render communication impossible.
  • sime
    1k
    The very definition of 'alien' is in terms of the respective entity's tendency or capacity to mirror and predict our stimulus-responses for it's own survival. The Turing 'Test' is a misnomer; for the test constitutes a natural definition of intelligence. If we cannot interpret an entity's stimulus-responses as acting in accordance with the basic organising principles of human culture, then as as far as we are concerned, the entity isn't worthy of consideration. So to a large extent, the ability of aliens to speak 'our language' is presupposed in our definitional criteria.
  • Qmeri
    208
    If I understand correctly then your "mirroring" argument depends on the multitude of ways information may be transmitted through any given medium of communication. I'm not qualified to comment on that but if evolution is true then there must be some logic to how our senses, input/output devices, evolved. We can look at the communication systems in humans, presumably the highest intelligent lifeform and examine how they evolved. A fair estimate would be that such systems evolved to maximize information carrying capacity e.g. color discerning ability gives us access to more information than just light-shade contrast vision.

    If that's the case then, evolution on other planets would also evolve in a similar enough way that would make communication systems of all life in the universe converge rather than diverge. This would mean that, contrary to your argument, "mirroring" ability among lifeforms in the universe may not be so radically different to each other to render communication impossible.
    TheMadFool

    The problem isn't that evolution doesn't cause things to converge on large scales. The problem is that evolution never creates any kinds of "ultimate" or "perfection". Different ways of processing information can work better in different environments. They can work differently if things defined very early in evolution like replication mechanisms of cells are different. They can simply be non optimal vestiges from earlier evolution. And many times times different systems can all work just as well - making no difference for evolution, but still changing the particularities of how associations work in your species (assuming that the species even uses an association based communication).

    This combined with the fact that our language requires extremely similar associations to happen. When basic things like "shape" start to mean fundamentally different things simply because one uses colour to define contrasting lines and one uses brightness (which isn't an inferior method in many cases), it doesn't require most of the things to be differently programmed. Even a part of a percent difference in programming can reliably cause enormous changes in the end result. This is the reason why complex mirroring requires so precise similarity from the systems that use it.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    An interesting podcast you should listen to is a scientist describing how the mind makes sense of reality. It's called the hallucinary mind.
  • Qmeri
    208
    The very definition of 'alien' is in terms of the respective entity's tendency or capacity to mirror and predict our stimulus-responses for it's own survival. The Turing 'Test' is a misnomer; for the test constitutes our natural definition of intelligence. If we cannot interpret an entity's stimulus-responses as acting in accordance with the basic organising principles of human culture, then as as far as we are concerned, the entity isn't worthy of consideration. So to a large extent, the ability of alien's to speak 'our language' is a presupposed in our definitional criteria.sime

    I very much disagree with that our definition of general intelligence should be associated with the Turing test. That would be the same as defining "a car" to be only those things that are nearly exactly the same as a volkswagen beetle, since fluent human speech requires one to be capable of reproducing human programming almost exactly. Even a human with all of our quirks and flaws removed, could not speak with us fluently - he would be confused with most of the associations we make with our language - only being capable of using it through definitions and logic for the most part, which is not mirroring. Are you saying that a human without our quirks and flaws is not intelligent?

    If a system is capable of gathering information about its environment and making predictions based on it and if it is capable of intependently creating complex technologies and solutions based on its information and just generally doing the things that we humans are capable with our "intelligence", then it is intelligent whether or not it can speak the human language.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    If we can imagine an alien it would by definition not be alien.
  • mcdoodle
    1.1k
    I think the main reason we can't talk fluently with computers is that we talk, and interpret talk, with our bodies, not our 'minds'. That's how mind-reading and 'mirroring' happen, through mutual body-reading.

    As for the future: never say never. I saw 'Arrival', so I know Amy Adams will know how to communicate with the aliens, if no-one else can.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    How do telephone conversations work for you?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    This is the reason why complex mirroring requires so precise similarity from the systems that use it.Qmeri

    There's enough elbow room in convergent evolution to make inter-species communication impossible and in fact there have been no recorded cases of such events. Each species seems confined to their respective domains as far as language is concerned.

    However, if there's anything in favor of communication still being possible is the shared environment. Arguably Hydrogen on earth would be identical to Hydrogen anywhere else in the universe. In fact this assumption has been used for an attempt at alien communication - the golden record on the voyager spacecrafts.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    A mathematical language Will be understood throughout the universe outside of black holes.
  • sime
    1k


    Recall that in the Turing Test, a human evaluator has to decide purely on the basis of reading or hearing a natural language dialogue between two participants, which of the participants is a machine. If he cannot determine the identities of the participants, the machine is said to have passed the test. Understood narrowly as referring to a particular experimental situation, yes the Turing Test fails to capture the broader notion of intelligence. But understood more broadly as an approach to the identification of intelligence, the Turing test identifies or rather defines intelligence pragmatically and directly in terms of the behavioural propensities that satisfy human intuition. The test therefore avoids metaphysical speculation as to what intelligence is or is not in an absolute sense independent of human intuition.
  • Qmeri
    208
    However, if there's anything in favor of communication still being possible is the shared environment. Arguably Hydrogen on earth would be identical to Hydrogen anywhere else in the universe. In fact this assumption has been used for an attempt at alien communication - the golden record on the voyager spacecrafts.TheMadFool

    Yes, and that is exactly a form of communication that doesn't use mirroring - a logical language which is based on definitions. Definitions don't need mirroring since they are defined the same irregardless of what you associate with them. And that's what our communications with aliens and AIs will be like - making definitions and saying things simply by those definitions. It's much slower and the things we don't know how to define with purely logical means become near impossible to talk about.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Yes, and that is exactly a form of communication that doesn't use mirroring - a logical language which is based on definitions. Definitions don't need mirroring since they are defined the same irregardless of what you associate with them. And that's what our communications with aliens and AIs will be like - making definitions and saying things simply by those definitions. It's much slower and the things we don't know how to define with purely logical means become near impossible to talk about.Qmeri

    Just curious, what exactly do you mean by "mirroring"?
  • Qmeri
    208
    Recall that in the Turing Test, a human evaluator has to decide purely on the basis of reading or hearing a natural language dialogue between two participants, which of the participants is a machine. If he cannot determine the identities of the participants, the machine is said to have passed the test. Understood narrowly as referring to a particular experimental situation, yes the Turing Test fails to capture the broader essence of intelligence. But understood more broadly as an approach to the identification of intelligence, the Turing test identifies and defines intelligence pragmatically and directly in terms of behavioural propensities that satisfy human intuition. The test therefore avoids metaphysical speculation as to what intelligence is or is not in an absolute sense.sime

    If the "natural language" is specifically defined not to use mirroring, I might agree with the broader definition of the Turing test. Mirroring would always give an advantage to the human participant since the evaluator would understand his words better since the evaluator is programmed in such a similar way.

    But no - even then the test simply doesn't work in anything but finding things that can reproduce the particular way humans are programmed. It is much harder to replicate the behavior of a thing that is on your level or lower than it is to just be on his level or higher. The test just can't be defined in any way where a human evaluator decides which participant is human. Mirroring just makes that too easy no matter how intelligent the other participant is - no matter what language is used since every kind of expression causes associations in human mind.

    With this test literally a system which can do everything a human can except predicting some particular associations humans get from specific phrases in specific contexts for reasons even they don't know, would not pass the test. Even if it solved every big problem we humans have not yet solved and explained its reasons for its own goals, it would not pass the Turing test since the evaluator can identify it as the machine.
  • Qmeri
    208
    Mirroring is anything where the way you are is used to predict the way something else is. For example in our language, we just assume that our associations have something to do with the thing someone else said, just because we have those associations. It doesn't work all the time and we do modify our thoughts of what someone meant by what we know of him, but as the basis, our language simply uses mirroring to predict what others mean. Very fast - doesn't need definitions, but does require everyone to be programmed in a very similar way.
  • sime
    1k


    Yes the Turing test is anthropomorphic, but why is that a problem in the absence of an 'objective' alternative?

    Not even a logical language can be identified without mirroring. Recall Wittgenstein's example of an alien tribe stamping their feet and grunting in a way that is compatible with the rules of Chess. Only if we recognised their culture a being similar to ours might we assert they were playing Chess.
  • ovdtogt
    667


    Recall Wittgenstein's examplesime

    Fame has this mystical quality of turning shit into gold. I think this is what the alchemists were looking for all the time.
    Often the difference between something being profound or crazy is the person saying it.

    The difference between great and mediocre contemporary art is the artist who made it.
  • Qmeri
    208
    I agree with you that we lack a good definition for general intelligence. But as my example of a thing that is clearly as intelligent as us but can't predict all our associations demonstrates, even our intuition doesn't agree with the Turing test as what is intelligent. We need to keep working to understand what intelligence is and as I currently see it, the way the Turing test is used in this work and in things like AI development, it diverts us into a path that is harmful. It is quite obvious that a transistor based general intelligence doesn't need to be able to speak any language in an indistinguishable way from humans and that that would be an inefficient and unnecessarily complex way to program general intelligence - yet people tend to see that as an important goal right now. Harmful, I say!
  • ovdtogt
    667
    I agree with you that we lack a good definition for general intelligenceQmeri

    My clock is intelligent. It can tell me the time.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Mirroring is anything where the way you are is used to predict the way something else is. For example in our language, we just assume that our associations have something to do with the thing someone else said, just because we have those associations. It doesn't work all the time and we do modify our thoughts of what someone meant by what we know of him, but as the basis, our language simply uses mirroring to predict what others mean. Very fast - doesn't need definitions, but does require everyone to be programmed in a very similar way.Qmeri

    "Prediction" seems a wrong concept to apply to language. I thought that was an astrologer's domain. Language is about information isn't it and while that maybe useful to make predictions, language itself is solely about transmitting information and so your version of "mirroring" seems a bit off the mark. Perhaps you'll enlighten me.
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    Wittgenstein said he could never understand a !ion. But could Hercules understand us?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    My clock is intelligent. It can tell me the time.ovdtogt

    :rofl:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.