For proper formatting (bold, italics, etc.) and graphics (where applicable) see the PDF version. Copyright: 2020 Retraice, Inc.

Re11: Travel

Retraice1

On where intelligent things can go, and when, and how.

Air date: Wednesday, 4th Nov. 2020, 1 : 05 PM Pacific/US.

1 Travel is smart, motion is dumb

Smart things (e.g. people, animals) are traveling. Dumb things (e.g. rocks, clouds) are just moving.

What's the difference?

'Travel' implies internal things—thoughts, intentions, beliefs, etc.

Mental time travel

There's an open question in comparative psychology (or comparative cognitive science) about whether some non-human creatures, such as birds, do "mental time travel", i.e. thinking about the future and taking actions in the present according to such thoughts.2

Obviously humans can do it, right?

The marshmallow test—and trust

Consider the marshmallow test: resist temptation and you'll get something more in the future—unless you don't trust me.3

Time travel is space travel

It's hard to conceive of traveling in one but not the other.

Space and time are bizarre

Because quantum theory and relativity.

Drawing the intelligence line

Even the dumbest amongst us is smart enough to do mental, in addition to physical, travel.

Where we draw the line is a choice. There is no wide gap between the creatures on Earth, humble to human.4

Hinton's five-year-old experiment

To appreciate how impressive natural intelligence is, consider a child trained to perform on a simple test. While he is supposed to be doing as we expect, he's also wrapping his mind around the entire situation, including the people and things at different places and times, that are trying to figure him out.5 He's mentally traveling.

Other creatures

We can say, perhaps, that lesser creatures, when they do impressive things like nesting or food storage, are being reflexive, not doing 'mental time travel'. But is that justified?

What is natural intelligence really about?

Travel, guessing, checking, learning. Which ones are essential? It's not obvious.

Amendments and corrections

Re10: We forgot to say Feynman's 3 rules; and Darwin's Delay might have been about workload and illness, not fear of repercussions. See the PDF notes for details.6

References

Ford, M. (2018). Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it. Packt. ISBN: 978-1789131512. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-1789131512 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-1789131512

Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children's decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109–114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027712001849 Retrieved 4th Nov. 2020.

Mischel, W. (2014). The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control. Little, Brown and Company, Kindle ed. ISBN: 978-0316230858. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0316230858 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0316230858 https://lccn.loc.gov/2014018058

O'Shea, M. (2005). The Brain: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. ISBN: 978-0192853929. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0192853929 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0192853929 https://lccn.loc.gov/2005027741

Retraice (2020/09/07). Re1: Three Kinds of Intelligence. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re1 Retrieved 22nd Sep. 2020.

Retraice (2020/11/02). Re10: Living to Guess Another Day. retraice.com. https://www.retraice.com/segments/re10 Retrieved 2nd Nov. 2020.

Russell, B. (1921). The Analysis of Mind. Macmillan. No ISBN. https://books.google.com/books?id=4dYLAAAAIAAJ Retrieved 6th May. 2019.

Shettleworth, S. J. (2013). Fundamentals of Comparative Cognition. Oxford. ISBN: 978-0195343106. Searches: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=978-0195343106 https://www.google.com/search?q=isbn+978-0195343106 https://lccn.loc.gov/2012000398

Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the marshmallow test: A conceptual replication investigating links between early delay of gratification and later outcomes. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1159–1177. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661 Retrieved 4th Nov. 2020.

1https://www.retraice.com/retraice

2Shettleworth (2013) pp. 69-72.

3Mischel (2014). See also Kidd et al. (2013) and Watts et al. (2018) on the more nuanced, less sensational conclusions, including the importance of trust.

4O'Shea (2005) pp. 21-22; Russell (1921) p. 41. Cf. Retraice (2020/09/07).

5Ford (2018) p. 81.

6Retraice (2020/11/02).