The path to intelligence. Step one. Overall picture
The article attempts to understand what Intellect is and explain the principles of its construction and implementation in simple language. The concept of “Intelligence” generates fog even in the minds of smart people. As a rule, everyone understands Intellect so that it “thinks like a person.” Bearing in mind the formal side of thinking. But a person can think not only formally (logically), but also emotionally, as well as abstractly (not to be confused with logical), but also sensory sensations (specifically).
The topic of Intellect is interesting for its inconsistency and confusion. Here a large number of different concepts, somehow related to each other, are mixed into one heap. What is Intellect? And how does it relate to Reason and Consciousness? Is it the same thing or not? What is the subconscious? What is meant by thinking? Does the cell have consciousness? Do monkeys have a mind? How does frog's intelligence differ from bee's intelligence? Or they have no intelligence? It is clear that such questions may arise a million. Therefore, I consider it extremely important to define the framework - what is Intellect - and therefore determine where it is and where it is not.
Intellect (from the Latin. Intellectus - knowledge, understanding, reason), the ability of thinking, rational knowledge ... etc. On the Web, you can find many similar definitions, from which it becomes clear that they give us little. For example, from everyday ideas we can assume that dogs have intelligence. But whether they have rational knowledge is harder to say. And what is rational knowledge? Looking at the moon through a telescope? Then do not possess ... well, etc. Based on the practice in the thematic forums, I encountered many different opinions, sometimes very opposite.
For example, there were statements that there is an “animal” and “civilizational” intellect. Or “imaginative-sensual” and “logical-abstract” types of intelligence. It turns out, for example, that figurative thinking cannot be abstract. What about Salvador Dali? Also, some say that only man possesses intelligence, and all animals have only “adaptive behavior”. Many prefer to equate: Intelligence = Consciousness = Mind. Some believe that Consciousness begins with a cell. Or Intellect begins with a cell, but they put their understanding in this term. There is also a theory [Simonov] that there is a Subconscious, Consciousness and Superconsciousness. The last is a creative Consciousness that only a few can have. Or, for example, there is an opinion that the mechanisms (electronic including) have Intellect, but “very very little”, the dog has “more”, and the person has “very much”. It turns out that Intellect is just some kind of elusive substance that is everywhere and nowhere ...
')
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to briefly focus on the concept of the Model, which is crucial in the science of Intellect.
A model (lat. Modulus - “measure, analog, sample”) is a system, the study of which serves as a means to obtain information about another system , this is a simplified representation of a real device and / or processes, phenomena occurring in it ... There are other similar ones on the Web definitions, but there is a need to clarify them. In general, under the Model you can understand anything, even a paper boat. It can also be a theory and a formula, it will just be different types of models: physical, mathematical, formal, etc.
So, in our reasoning, there is a place to be a Model and “another system” - the Original. The basic statements will be:
1) The model is much simpler than the Original;
2) The model contains the “essential” properties of the Original;
3) their “materiality” is determined by the Purpose of building the Model.
Without the Goal, it is impossible to single out the “essential” properties of the Original, which means that without the Goal there is no Model either. In other words, the Model is a look at the Original from the point of view of the Goal. The trick is that due to the complexity of real objects, there can be many such points of view and all of them will be correct. Thus, there is a trio of interrelated concepts: Original, Model and Purpose. Remember this.
A simple example shows that a frog living in a pond and a heron that hunts it have different goals and different resources to achieve their goals. It is also natural to assume that the models of the same pond will be different. Does this mean that these models will not be true? No, it does not, because the goals will also be different. And then what is the criterion for the adequacy of these models? The answer is obvious - the degree of achievement of the goal: the more effectively the goal is achieved, the more adequate the model.
Now let us return to the definitions of Intellect, from the set of which the following is interesting. Intellect is the ability of a system to display patterns of the external world and use them to achieve its goals [Samarin]. In my opinion, here the phrase “to display patterns of the external world” needs to be clarified and replaced with “dynamically form sensory models of the environment”.
We now turn to Fig. 1, which presents a graph of the levels of the effectiveness of the behavior of living organisms, depending on whether they have various mechanisms of thought. The graph has a discontinuous threshold nature, like most natural processes. It is obvious that a jump in efficiency appears after the appearance of a new mechanism of thinking.
1. The level of automatic behavior. It is characterized by “rigidly stitched” (static) behavior, which, with changing external conditions, changes little or not at all. It is characterized by rigidity and low flexibility. The ability to modify (learn) is weak and only in a narrow range of possibilities. This level of behavior is characteristic of insects.
2. The level of adaptive behavior occurs as a result of the formation of sensory models of the environment. These models are dynamically formed, i.e. in the process of life. The mechanism for the formation of such models is learning. Adaptive behavior will also be called the behavior of "simple" intelligence. This behavior is characteristic of amphibians and reptiles.
3. The level of subconscious behavior occurs after the appearance of a mechanism capable of dynamically forming sensory predictive models of the environment. In accordance with the Theory of Functional Systems (TFS) [Anokhin], the predictive properties of intelligence are provided by the Action Outcome Acceptor (DRA). These will be systems with “true” Intellect, which will also be called systems with “complex” intelligence. An example would be higher mammals. For the reasons stated above, we can assume that the cells and insects have no “intelligence”. Never was and never will be.
4. The level of conscious behavior arises as a result of the appearance of sign models of sensory models of the environment. Those. a label is attached to the sensor model - a label, or a label, or a sign, after which you can use the reference to the model, and not the sensor model itself. Sign systems can be any: graphic, sound, receptive (Braille alphabet), sign language, etc. Then we have the following chain:
Real World -> Touch Models -> Sign Models
The model of the model leads to a further simplification of complex objects of the real world, which makes it possible to cognize it more effectively. Pavlov's famous thought that a word is a signal of a signal, as a result of which a second signal system has arisen in a person confirms this logic.
Outwardly, it looks like speech, in one form or another. It also leads to the emergence of rational behavior and the phenomenon of Consciousness, when one's own thoughts and actions are realized. They can be voiced, explained to another person, etc. Experiments with higher primates show that they have protoconsciousness, because successfully master simple language. We can say that they are at the foot of the last “step” on the chart. For this reason, cats, amphibians and cells have no consciousness and can not be. This can be briefly expressed as:
1. (Automaton Behavior) <- Hard static environment models
2. (Adaptation = Simple Intelligence) <- Sensory Dynamic Environment Models
3. (Intellect = Complicated Intelligence) <- Sensory Models + ARD (Prediction)
4. (Mind = Consciousness) <- Sensory models + ARD + Sign models
From this it becomes clear the difficulties in solving the problem of understanding the natural language and thinking of man. This is due to ignoring the stages of sensory modeling and sensory prediction. Researchers immediately catch at higher functions, which are based on lower-level primitives, forming, ultimately, a hierarchical system of models. Hence, step-by-step work on the implementation of these levels is necessary, of which Level 2 and Number 3 are of considerable interest. The implementation of level 1 seems trivial. Therefore, it makes sense to consider well-known data on the “constructiveness” of understanding the mechanisms of thinking in the field of neurobiology, neuroanatomy, and psychophysiology. Here, the "mechanisms of thinking" refers to architectural concepts of the most general form.
Figure 2 shows the model of behavior, also known as the architecture of the functional system in the framework of the TPS [Anokhin]. Figure 3 presents a model of a behavioral act, taking into account the needs, motivation and emotions [Simonov]. Some analysis reveals that both well-known scientists have depicted the behavior in fact in the form of time diagrams , and not in the form of static flowcharts, as is customary, for example, in digital circuitry. There are other similar schemes, for example, in Fig. 4 [Red-tooths], in Fig. 5 [Zhdanov], and many others, which also do not contribute much clarity.
For example, if in Figure 2 there is a block “Decision Making”, then in Figure 3 and Figure 4 it is absent, in Figure 3 there is a block “Emotion”, and in Figure 2 it is absent. The same can be said about “Acceptor of the result of action”, “Motivation”, “Formation of memory”, “Knowledge base”, “Formation of action”, “Pattern recognition”, etc. Thus, it is impossible to understand from known sources what the architecture of a technical system should be capable of performing intellectual functions in accordance with, for example, the level of behavior efficiency No. 2. Hence it is clear that for the formation of such an architecture, an engineering approach is necessary, taking into account the considered general picture.
To be continued.
References
Aleksandrov Yu.I. Psychophysiology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007.
Anokhin P.K. Principal issues of the general theory of functional systems // Principles of the system organization of functions. M .: Science, 1973.
Velichkovsky B.M. Cognitive science: the basics of the psychology of knowledge. M .: Meaning, 2006.
Danilova N.N., Krylova A.L. Physiology of higher nervous activity. M .: Educational literature, 1997.
Zhdanov A.A. Autonomous artificial intelligence. M .: Binom, 2009.
Luria A.R. Higher human cortical functions. M .: MSU, 1962.
Redozubov A.D. The logic of emotions. SPb .: Amfora, 2012.
Samarin A.I. Mobile robots and self-organization in neural structures - a retrospective view // From behavioral models to artificial intelligence. Ed. VG Redko. M .: URSS, 2006.
Simonov P.V. Emotional brain. M .: Science, 1981.
Sudakov K.V. Physiology. Fundamentals and functional systems. M .: Medicine, 2000.
Turchin V.F. The phenomenon of science: a cybernetic approach to evolution. M .: ETS, 2000.
Hyubel D. Eye, brain, eyesight. M .: Mir, 1990.
Shvyrkov V.B. Introduction to objective psychology: the neuronal basis of the psyche. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006.
Ashby W.R. The design of the brain. M .: Foreign literature, 1962.
The topic of Intellect is interesting for its inconsistency and confusion. Here a large number of different concepts, somehow related to each other, are mixed into one heap. What is Intellect? And how does it relate to Reason and Consciousness? Is it the same thing or not? What is the subconscious? What is meant by thinking? Does the cell have consciousness? Do monkeys have a mind? How does frog's intelligence differ from bee's intelligence? Or they have no intelligence? It is clear that such questions may arise a million. Therefore, I consider it extremely important to define the framework - what is Intellect - and therefore determine where it is and where it is not.
Intellect (from the Latin. Intellectus - knowledge, understanding, reason), the ability of thinking, rational knowledge ... etc. On the Web, you can find many similar definitions, from which it becomes clear that they give us little. For example, from everyday ideas we can assume that dogs have intelligence. But whether they have rational knowledge is harder to say. And what is rational knowledge? Looking at the moon through a telescope? Then do not possess ... well, etc. Based on the practice in the thematic forums, I encountered many different opinions, sometimes very opposite.
For example, there were statements that there is an “animal” and “civilizational” intellect. Or “imaginative-sensual” and “logical-abstract” types of intelligence. It turns out, for example, that figurative thinking cannot be abstract. What about Salvador Dali? Also, some say that only man possesses intelligence, and all animals have only “adaptive behavior”. Many prefer to equate: Intelligence = Consciousness = Mind. Some believe that Consciousness begins with a cell. Or Intellect begins with a cell, but they put their understanding in this term. There is also a theory [Simonov] that there is a Subconscious, Consciousness and Superconsciousness. The last is a creative Consciousness that only a few can have. Or, for example, there is an opinion that the mechanisms (electronic including) have Intellect, but “very very little”, the dog has “more”, and the person has “very much”. It turns out that Intellect is just some kind of elusive substance that is everywhere and nowhere ...
')
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to briefly focus on the concept of the Model, which is crucial in the science of Intellect.
A model (lat. Modulus - “measure, analog, sample”) is a system, the study of which serves as a means to obtain information about another system , this is a simplified representation of a real device and / or processes, phenomena occurring in it ... There are other similar ones on the Web definitions, but there is a need to clarify them. In general, under the Model you can understand anything, even a paper boat. It can also be a theory and a formula, it will just be different types of models: physical, mathematical, formal, etc.
So, in our reasoning, there is a place to be a Model and “another system” - the Original. The basic statements will be:
1) The model is much simpler than the Original;
2) The model contains the “essential” properties of the Original;
3) their “materiality” is determined by the Purpose of building the Model.
Without the Goal, it is impossible to single out the “essential” properties of the Original, which means that without the Goal there is no Model either. In other words, the Model is a look at the Original from the point of view of the Goal. The trick is that due to the complexity of real objects, there can be many such points of view and all of them will be correct. Thus, there is a trio of interrelated concepts: Original, Model and Purpose. Remember this.
A simple example shows that a frog living in a pond and a heron that hunts it have different goals and different resources to achieve their goals. It is also natural to assume that the models of the same pond will be different. Does this mean that these models will not be true? No, it does not, because the goals will also be different. And then what is the criterion for the adequacy of these models? The answer is obvious - the degree of achievement of the goal: the more effectively the goal is achieved, the more adequate the model.
Now let us return to the definitions of Intellect, from the set of which the following is interesting. Intellect is the ability of a system to display patterns of the external world and use them to achieve its goals [Samarin]. In my opinion, here the phrase “to display patterns of the external world” needs to be clarified and replaced with “dynamically form sensory models of the environment”.
We now turn to Fig. 1, which presents a graph of the levels of the effectiveness of the behavior of living organisms, depending on whether they have various mechanisms of thought. The graph has a discontinuous threshold nature, like most natural processes. It is obvious that a jump in efficiency appears after the appearance of a new mechanism of thinking.
1. The level of automatic behavior. It is characterized by “rigidly stitched” (static) behavior, which, with changing external conditions, changes little or not at all. It is characterized by rigidity and low flexibility. The ability to modify (learn) is weak and only in a narrow range of possibilities. This level of behavior is characteristic of insects.
2. The level of adaptive behavior occurs as a result of the formation of sensory models of the environment. These models are dynamically formed, i.e. in the process of life. The mechanism for the formation of such models is learning. Adaptive behavior will also be called the behavior of "simple" intelligence. This behavior is characteristic of amphibians and reptiles.
3. The level of subconscious behavior occurs after the appearance of a mechanism capable of dynamically forming sensory predictive models of the environment. In accordance with the Theory of Functional Systems (TFS) [Anokhin], the predictive properties of intelligence are provided by the Action Outcome Acceptor (DRA). These will be systems with “true” Intellect, which will also be called systems with “complex” intelligence. An example would be higher mammals. For the reasons stated above, we can assume that the cells and insects have no “intelligence”. Never was and never will be.
4. The level of conscious behavior arises as a result of the appearance of sign models of sensory models of the environment. Those. a label is attached to the sensor model - a label, or a label, or a sign, after which you can use the reference to the model, and not the sensor model itself. Sign systems can be any: graphic, sound, receptive (Braille alphabet), sign language, etc. Then we have the following chain:
Real World -> Touch Models -> Sign Models
The model of the model leads to a further simplification of complex objects of the real world, which makes it possible to cognize it more effectively. Pavlov's famous thought that a word is a signal of a signal, as a result of which a second signal system has arisen in a person confirms this logic.
Outwardly, it looks like speech, in one form or another. It also leads to the emergence of rational behavior and the phenomenon of Consciousness, when one's own thoughts and actions are realized. They can be voiced, explained to another person, etc. Experiments with higher primates show that they have protoconsciousness, because successfully master simple language. We can say that they are at the foot of the last “step” on the chart. For this reason, cats, amphibians and cells have no consciousness and can not be. This can be briefly expressed as:
1. (Automaton Behavior) <- Hard static environment models
2. (Adaptation = Simple Intelligence) <- Sensory Dynamic Environment Models
3. (Intellect = Complicated Intelligence) <- Sensory Models + ARD (Prediction)
4. (Mind = Consciousness) <- Sensory models + ARD + Sign models
From this it becomes clear the difficulties in solving the problem of understanding the natural language and thinking of man. This is due to ignoring the stages of sensory modeling and sensory prediction. Researchers immediately catch at higher functions, which are based on lower-level primitives, forming, ultimately, a hierarchical system of models. Hence, step-by-step work on the implementation of these levels is necessary, of which Level 2 and Number 3 are of considerable interest. The implementation of level 1 seems trivial. Therefore, it makes sense to consider well-known data on the “constructiveness” of understanding the mechanisms of thinking in the field of neurobiology, neuroanatomy, and psychophysiology. Here, the "mechanisms of thinking" refers to architectural concepts of the most general form.
Figure 2 shows the model of behavior, also known as the architecture of the functional system in the framework of the TPS [Anokhin]. Figure 3 presents a model of a behavioral act, taking into account the needs, motivation and emotions [Simonov]. Some analysis reveals that both well-known scientists have depicted the behavior in fact in the form of time diagrams , and not in the form of static flowcharts, as is customary, for example, in digital circuitry. There are other similar schemes, for example, in Fig. 4 [Red-tooths], in Fig. 5 [Zhdanov], and many others, which also do not contribute much clarity.
For example, if in Figure 2 there is a block “Decision Making”, then in Figure 3 and Figure 4 it is absent, in Figure 3 there is a block “Emotion”, and in Figure 2 it is absent. The same can be said about “Acceptor of the result of action”, “Motivation”, “Formation of memory”, “Knowledge base”, “Formation of action”, “Pattern recognition”, etc. Thus, it is impossible to understand from known sources what the architecture of a technical system should be capable of performing intellectual functions in accordance with, for example, the level of behavior efficiency No. 2. Hence it is clear that for the formation of such an architecture, an engineering approach is necessary, taking into account the considered general picture.
To be continued.
References
Aleksandrov Yu.I. Psychophysiology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007.
Anokhin P.K. Principal issues of the general theory of functional systems // Principles of the system organization of functions. M .: Science, 1973.
Velichkovsky B.M. Cognitive science: the basics of the psychology of knowledge. M .: Meaning, 2006.
Danilova N.N., Krylova A.L. Physiology of higher nervous activity. M .: Educational literature, 1997.
Zhdanov A.A. Autonomous artificial intelligence. M .: Binom, 2009.
Luria A.R. Higher human cortical functions. M .: MSU, 1962.
Redozubov A.D. The logic of emotions. SPb .: Amfora, 2012.
Samarin A.I. Mobile robots and self-organization in neural structures - a retrospective view // From behavioral models to artificial intelligence. Ed. VG Redko. M .: URSS, 2006.
Simonov P.V. Emotional brain. M .: Science, 1981.
Sudakov K.V. Physiology. Fundamentals and functional systems. M .: Medicine, 2000.
Turchin V.F. The phenomenon of science: a cybernetic approach to evolution. M .: ETS, 2000.
Hyubel D. Eye, brain, eyesight. M .: Mir, 1990.
Shvyrkov V.B. Introduction to objective psychology: the neuronal basis of the psyche. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006.
Ashby W.R. The design of the brain. M .: Foreign literature, 1962.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/220525/
All Articles