Xref: utzoo comp.ai:4849 talk.philosophy.misc:3008
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!massey!ARaman
From: ARaman@massey.ac.nz (A.V. Raman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Knowledge Representation, A thought experiment
Keywords: thought experiment
Message-ID: <357@massey.ac.nz>
Date: 8 Oct 89 21:59:06 GMT
Reply-To: ARaman@massey.ac.nz (A.V. Raman)
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Lines: 88
Sender:

Topic:  Knowledge Representation

Aim: To find a system that represents knowledge as efficiently
     as the human brain.

                    Introduction
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a widespread notion that the human brain is the most
intelligent system at present known to us.  This is a direct
consequence of the fact that the human brain is also the most
efficient knowledge base known.  In this article, we analyze the
above proposition objectively to find out whether the human
brain is really the most efficient knowledge base known, and
whether any other intelligent system, with at least as efficient a
knowledge base already exists, and if so, is known to man.


1) Another look at Information:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What exactly is this thing called information that is so essentially
a part of knowledge representation?  In what way can a data structure
not be called information?  Simply said, information is structure.
We do not classify information as useful structure, because this is
not a discussion on philosophy.

Any structure conveys information of some kind or other.  In what way
is a sequence of bytes in a file or RAM different from, say, a stack
of books piled up on the table?  If we so decided, we could use the
stack of books to convey the same information that the sequence of
bytes conveys.

There is absolutely no way in which we can say that any structure
whatsoever, is information, that can be manipulated.

2) Another look at thought processes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the difference between a thought process as it is now known
and any operation that changes a data structure?  Why do we say that
a book falling of the top of a stack is not a thought process, whereas
a rearrangement of bytes in a theoretical expert system is?  What
makes us decide that free-relating objects or discrete data structures
is not the same as any 'random' event occurring on earth today.

What makes us think that discovering a new mathematical law is any
different from from the creation of zinc sulphate when zinc and
sulphuric acid are mixed?  Neither existed before the 'event'.  Each
depended on its predecessors.  In the first case it was a set of
mathematical laws which led to the derivation of the next.  In the
second case it was a set of chemicals.  In either case an 'event' was
involved that resulted in the transformation.  What makes us distinguish
these two events other than the fact that one 'creation' is a tangible
data structure and the other is not.

Any structure conveys information and any operation that changes a
structure is a thought process.  

2.1) A thought experiment:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a man was reduced to the size of a photon and put inside the
human brain, would he be capable of deducing that his surroundings are
capable of thinking?
Would he observe the electrons flowing from one part of the brain to
another as a thought process?
Would he deduce that the structured arrangement of the molecules around
him are nothing but information useful to the body to which the brain
belongs?
Would he observe the external stimuli being passed on to the brain as
information inputs being sent to the processing unit.
Would he observe a lone electron falling through a neural network as
an attempt by the brain to rectify a faulty assumption?

Or would he try to discover laws to explain the phenomenon around
him, coin a word called "random" to account for the inexplicable,
and invent such a thing as the 'Nature' now known?

I'm not saying that there exists Omniscience around us.  Further away
am I from saying that all intelligence is illusory.  What I am saying,
though, is that haven't we given Nature a pretty raw deal in
our study of Knowledge Representations?  Maybe we might benefit, at least
to a small extent, by studying how Nature itself stores information,
not within us but around us, and how Nature manipulates information
in our daily lives.

If what we call creativity is a measuring stone to intelligence,
hasn't Nature ever been as creative as we have.  Hasn't it learnt
from mistakes, just as we do.  Or maybe this article itself is one of
Nature's mistakes.
                                                      - &/..