OT: Some thoughts abouth thinking

Hi all.

A couple of days ago, I thought about thinking. No, I did not
evaluate whether it would be a good idea to start thinking
any time soon (although quite a few people would urge me
to do so), I was contemplating the process of "thinking" on
a more philosophical level.

Consider this:

The "average [Norwegian] human being" weighs in at some
75 kg while the "avreage brain" weighs in at some 1.5 kg,
so the brain represents on the order of 2% of the body mass.
I don't know the "average brain to body mass ratio" for
mammals, but assume it is 1% or so. With one or two exceptions,
the human has the largest brain to body mass ratio in the
world of mammels.

Based on this, one might postulate that the basis for the
human intelligence is the inproporsionally large brain.
While perhaps somewhat controversial today, this argument
has been presented in the scientific community in the past.

Next, let's see what "human intelligence" is all about.
As far as I can tell, the main difference between the
human an other mammals, is the ability to conduct abstract
thinking. One key factor to achieve this, is the spoken
language. People think in terms of words and sentences.
Writing down an argument is key to develop it, and formulating
an argument in words is fundamental to communicating an idea
to other people. Sure, visual ideas and communications play
an important part, but the spoken language is, as far as
I can tell, way more important for human life. A community of
people can get by very well without being able to draw or
ever see an image. They will be in severe trouble without
the ability to communicate through spoken language.

So, on the one hand the human being has an inproporsionally
large brain (some twice as big as it "ought" to be) an on the
other, the main gain from this ridiculously large and costly
brain is based on the ability to speak and treat spoken
language.

Which at long last brings me to the point:

Assumming that the main part of the "excess brain" in the
human is spent on treating speech and language, it would
mean that on the order of 0.5 kg of brain tissue is spent
on processing language.

Based on that line of arguments, I find speech processing by
means of DSP a somewhat overwhelming task. Those "visions"
about an automatic translator tool included in the cell
phone SW seem a bit far fetched, to be diplomatic.

Or am I just lost? On second thought, no need to answer
that one...

Rune

Hello,

Rune Allnor napisa�(a):
(...)
> Which at long last brings me to the point:
> 
> Assumming that the main part of the "excess brain" in the
> human is spent on treating speech and language, it would
> mean that on the order of 0.5 kg of brain tissue is spent
> on processing language.
> 
> Based on that line of arguments, I find speech processing by
> means of DSP a somewhat overwhelming task. Those "visions"
> about an automatic translator tool included in the cell
> phone SW seem a bit far fetched, to be diplomatic.
> 
> Or am I just lost? On second thought, no need to answer
> that one...
> 
> Rune

think, we can say that DSP plays I/O preprocessor role in speech 
processing (convert acoustic signal to words and vice versa), and for 
such a task 0.5 kg is too much (the ears are  "intelligent sensors").
The main task is speech understanding and "thouths processing" using 
words or sentences as a basic data elements. Large memory and high 
performance, parallel processor is a basic requirement, but who knows ... ?
(nanotechnology)

Regards

Roman Rumian

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Hi all.

> 
> Based on that line of arguments, I find speech processing by
> means of DSP a somewhat overwhelming task. Those "visions"
> about an automatic translator tool included in the cell
> phone SW seem a bit far fetched, to be diplomatic.
> 
> Or am I just lost? On second thought, no need to answer
> that one...
> 
> Rune
> 

Speech recognition is one of those things that have been "around the 
corner"  for almost all of my career of nearly 25 years. There's been 
progress  but the promised revolution hasn't happened yet. I wish 
Kurzweil would just shut up.

Rune Allnor wrote:
>  One key factor to achieve this, is the spoken
> language. People think in terms of words and sentences.

I have read that language may be the key to human memory too.  People 
are pretty much unable to remember the time before they could speak. 
Most people's earliest memories are from when they were two or three 
years old - about the time they gained the ability to communicate via 
language.

Perhaps codifying memories in the form of language is more efficient?

-- 
Jim Thomas            Principal Applications Engineer  Bittware, Inc
jthomas@bittware.com  http://www.bittware.com    (603) 226-0404 x536
Getting an inch of snow is like winning ten cents in the lottery - Calvin

Rune Allnor wrote:

> As far as I can tell, the main difference between the
> human an other mammals, is the ability to conduct abstract
> thinking. One key factor to achieve this, is the spoken
> language. People think in terms of words and sentences.
> Writing down an argument is key to develop it, and formulating
> an argument in words is fundamental to communicating an idea
> to other people. Sure, visual ideas and communications play
> an important part, but the spoken language is, as far as
> I can tell, way more important for human life.

Language is certainly our most versatile mode of communication, and 
very effective at the same time. It is also heavily interlocked with 
our elaborate social behavior that probably takes a sizable part of 
those excess 500 g. I think that due to this, it tends to overshadow 
in people's minds the huge import of vision to human cognition. 
Looking at evolutionary history, visual processing is much older; and 
it too benefits from our present abstractive faculties just like our 
ancestors' vocal and sign communication have. So maybe the 
conceptualizing powers that make us special have less to do with 
language per se but imbue all of mind's workings?

That idea rather fits your view of mechanical speech processing as 
"overwhelming" as it implies that to approach human ability there, a 
machine would also need to get close to a number of other 
superficially unrelated aspects of the human mind. In fact, this 
stance is not uncommon among cognition researchers.

I think you will like this piece:
http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html


Martin

-- 
In the Wacky Protestor's return, he hijacks the popular
children's TV show, "Mr. Funky's Wild Time", and uses it
to control the hearts and minds of every child watching.
-- http://www.bibleman.com/bibleman/store.jsp

"Jim Thomas" <jthomas@bittware.com> wrote in message 
news:11k51f2qhs9497@corp.supernews.com...
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>  One key factor to achieve this, is the spoken
>> language. People think in terms of words and sentences.
>
> I have read that language may be the key to human memory too.  People are 
> pretty much unable to remember the time before they could speak. Most people's 
> earliest memories are from when they were two or three years old - about the 
> time they gained the ability to communicate via language.
>
> Perhaps codifying memories in the form of language is more efficient?

A recent article I read in National Geographic stated that the part of the brain 
responsible for "long term memory" didn't develop until age 2-3 and listed this 
as the reason for our earliest memories being at that age.  But perhaps this is 
related to language development?

I was thinking about this recently in the context of my ~2.25 year-old daughter. 
She spoke quite early, being able to say dozens of words clearly even a year 
ago.  Last Halloween, we used to recite to her a poem about 5 pumpkins, and she 
would fill in missing words when we paused.  She became quite good at it to 
where she could fill words from every line.  Since it is October, I tried this 
again just a few days ago but she didn't seem to remember any of the words!  So 
while she had language skills, it appears that the poem was in her short-term 
memory but didn't make it into her long-term memory.  FWIW. 

Jim Thomas wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> 
>>  One key factor to achieve this, is the spoken
>> language. People think in terms of words and sentences.
> 
> 
> I have read that language may be the key to human memory too.  People 
> are pretty much unable to remember the time before they could speak. 
> Most people's earliest memories are from when they were two or three 
> years old - about the time they gained the ability to communicate via 
> language.
> 
> Perhaps codifying memories in the form of language is more efficient?

When little Izzy, age 11 months, returned home after three grueling 
weeks of recovery from having been gutted, she remembered it well. On 
being placed in her own crib, she smiled her most endearing, sighed (I 
like to think with contentment), and promptly slept. She remembered home.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Rune Allnor wrote:

   ...

> Assumming that the main part of the "excess brain" in the
> human is spent on treating speech and language, it would
> mean that on the order of 0.5 kg of brain tissue is spent
> on processing language.
> 
> Based on that line of arguments, I find speech processing by
> means of DSP a somewhat overwhelming task. Those "visions"
> about an automatic translator tool included in the cell
> phone SW seem a bit far fetched, to be diplomatic.

   ...

How large is an orangutan's brain? Speech may assist thought, but it is
not thought's essence. Zookeepers found an orangutan family (father,
mother, child, and infant) out of their cage one morning and in the
outdoor exercise yard adjacent to it. The zookeeper in charge was
admonished for not having locked up properly. It happened again, after
the director verified that the cage had been locked. A TV camera was set
up to catch the culprit. It turned out to be the male orangutan*. He
carried a wire shaped to fit his gum under his upper lip. After the park
shut for the night, he fashioned it into a lockpick, opened the gate,
restored its horseshoe shape, and put it back in its "pocket". No speech
involved, but no lack of intelligence either. (Should we really cage
such creatures?)

Pretty solid theory has it that large brains evolve in part to master
the complexities of communal interactions, including the nuances of
deception. Dolphins provide an exotic example. General processing power
is flexible and can be applied to activities not involved in its
genesis. Dolphins seem to have a rich language.

Hearing has been around for a long time. It was well enough established
before speech developed to make the development useful, but our speech
centers are now separate from hearing in general. (The mechanics of
speech generation entailed physical changes, also. Precious brain space
is sacrificed to make room for a larger vocal cavity that protrudes
upward. At about the age of two, the larynx descends, making it no
longer possible to drink and breathe simultaneously. This further
increases the size of the vocal cavity but also increases the risk of
choking. Nursing infants don't need to pause for breath. None of my four
children ever had a coughing fit while nursing.)

Human speech processing seems to be divided into identifiable parts.
1) Sounds are classified as phonemes according to a "map" or look-up
    table. (Computer scientists weren't the first to do tokenizing.)
2) Phonemes are assembled to form words.
3) The words' meanings are checked for "reasonableness". This process
    resolves homonyms and may cause earlier steps to be repeated.
4) Individual meanings are assembled into concepts which both add to the
    context and depend on it. (Context influences meaning and resolves
    pronouns and elisions.)

It is now possible for computers to achieve steps 1 and 2 with modest
success. As far as I know, 3 and 4 are a long way off. Step 5 might be
translation to another language. I believe that what seems like partial
success in that area is illusory because it is mechanical. We will have
good translation when text can be abstracted to concept and context
which can then be expressed in any language "known" to the translator.

Jerry

P.S. I attended a talk in chip design given by a foreigner who spoke
deceptively good English. He referred several times to "resistor" in a
context where it made no sense. With close attention, I noticed a slight
oddity in how the 's' was pronounced in the accented second syllable.
There seemed to be a hint of 'd' in front of it. That and more context
cleared it up. He was saying "register", oddly pronouncing the 'g', and
accenting the wrong syllable. For claims of machine speech recognition,
I resistor a complaint.
_____________________________________
* In the language of the Celebes, "orang" means "man" and "utang" means
"jungle". "Anoa" means buffalo. "Anoa utang" describes a wild buffalo.
Somehow, in western use, "orang utang" becomes condensed .
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Martin Eisenberg wrote:

> So maybe the conceptualizing powers that make us special have
> less to do with language per se but imbue all of mind's workings? 

On the other hand, here's a pretty interesting argument that language 
compositionality is what binds together the basic faculties we share 
with many other animals. The file is big, about 6 MB.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2003.pdf

-- 
Be the change you're trying to create.
--Mahatma Gandhi

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>    ...
>
> > Assumming that the main part of the "excess brain" in the
> > human is spent on treating speech and language, it would
> > mean that on the order of 0.5 kg of brain tissue is spent
> > on processing language.
> >
> > Based on that line of arguments, I find speech processing by
> > means of DSP a somewhat overwhelming task. Those "visions"
> > about an automatic translator tool included in the cell
> > phone SW seem a bit far fetched, to be diplomatic.
>
>    ...
>
> How large is an orangutan's brain? Speech may assist thought, but it is
> not thought's essence. Zookeepers found an orangutan family (father,
> mother, child, and infant) out of their cage one morning and in the
> outdoor exercise yard adjacent to it. The zookeeper in charge was
> admonished for not having locked up properly. It happened again, after
> the director verified that the cage had been locked. A TV camera was set
> up to catch the culprit. It turned out to be the male orangutan*. He
> carried a wire shaped to fit his gum under his upper lip. After the park
> shut for the night, he fashioned it into a lockpick, opened the gate,
> restored its horseshoe shape, and put it back in its "pocket". No speech
> involved, but no lack of intelligence either. (Should we really cage
> such creatures?)

That=E6s the kind of stories that made insert a caveat about brain
size being a good measure for intelligence. There is more to it
than just size.

> Pretty solid theory has it that large brains evolve in part to master
> the complexities of communal interactions, including the nuances of
> deception. Dolphins provide an exotic example. General processing power
> is flexible and can be applied to activities not involved in its
> genesis. Dolphins seem to have a rich language.

The might well have. I did ponder that, too, during my insomnia.
Dolphins are rumoured to be eable to use their sonar to detect
and classify various objects in their environment. That capacity
reqires an ability to both modulate emitted sound and intepret
returns. Which in turn are the basic requirements to develop
language.

Food for thought in the sonar community.

> Hearing has been around for a long time. It was well enough established
> before speech developed to make the development useful, but our speech
> centers are now separate from hearing in general.

Well, yes. Hearing is part of the basic toolkit, at least what
mammals are concerned. I once saw an argument of the location of
the sense centra in the brain can serve as a clue to when they
were developed, the closer to the spinal cord the longer time
they have been in the brain.

In that context, the sense of smell is one of the oldest, as the
center for "smell processing" apparently is located at the joint
between the brain and the spinal cord. Which might explain why
certain scents just "kick off" a reaction of some kind, be it
perfume, rotten food or whatever.

> (The mechanics of
> speech generation entailed physical changes, also. Precious brain space
> is sacrificed to make room for a larger vocal cavity that protrudes
> upward. At about the age of two, the larynx descends, making it no
> longer possible to drink and breathe simultaneously. This further
> increases the size of the vocal cavity but also increases the risk of
> choking. Nursing infants don't need to pause for breath. None of my four
> children ever had a coughing fit while nursing.)
>
> Human speech processing seems to be divided into identifiable parts.
> 1) Sounds are classified as phonemes according to a "map" or look-up
>     table. (Computer scientists weren't the first to do tokenizing.)
> 2) Phonemes are assembled to form words.
> 3) The words' meanings are checked for "reasonableness". This process
>     resolves homonyms and may cause earlier steps to be repeated.
> 4) Individual meanings are assembled into concepts which both add to the
>     context and depend on it. (Context influences meaning and resolves
>     pronouns and elisions.)
>
> It is now possible for computers to achieve steps 1 and 2 with modest
> success. As far as I know, 3 and 4 are a long way off. Step 5 might be
> translation to another language. I believe that what seems like partial
> success in that area is illusory because it is mechanical. We will have
> good translation when text can be abstracted to concept and context
> which can then be expressed in any language "known" to the translator.

So much is based on association and context. Imagine you watch two
people meeting, and one shouts "Dick!" to the other. It may be two
friends expressing their joy of meeting after a long separation,
it may also be an obscenity. One just does not know from the
observed situation alone. Well, a human would be able to choose
between the above two interpretations based on body language and
intonation, but I would like to see the computer that has that
capacity.

> Jerry
>
> P.S. I attended a talk in chip design given by a foreigner who spoke
> deceptively good English. He referred several times to "resistor" in a
> context where it made no sense. With close attention, I noticed a slight
> oddity in how the 's' was pronounced in the accented second syllable.
> There seemed to be a hint of 'd' in front of it. That and more context
> cleared it up. He was saying "register", oddly pronouncing the 'g', and
> accenting the wrong syllable. For claims of machine speech recognition,
> I resistor a complaint.

I attended an in-house rehersal of a presentation that was to be
given at a conference. The talker consistently said "angel" where
she meant "angle". She was very happy about giving that presentation
in-house before going public...

Rune