I've long take it as an article of faith that humans are wired this way. But I am astounded by the comment about artificial intelligence. Is there any kind of paper that explores this? Not even sure how to set it up or quantify such a thing, but that would be incredible to prove.
Needless to say this was much more popular with us than just the screen. I am sure it is partly for the robotic'ness of it but we would often walk around with the turtle as it was moving. So what you are saying and linked to I can well believe.
"Abstract: Prior to the twentieth century, theories of knowledge were inherently perceptual. Since then, developments in logic, statistics, and programming languages have inspired amodal theories that rest on principles fundamentally different from those underlying perception. In addition, perceptual approaches have become widely viewed as untenable because they are assumed to implement recording systems, not conceptual systems. A perceptual theory of knowledge is developed here in the context of current cognitive science and neuroscience. During perceptual experience, association areas in the brain capture bottom-up patterns of activation in sensory-motor areas. Later, in a top-down manner, association areas partially reactivate sensory-motor areas to implement perceptual symbols. The storage and reactivation of perceptual symbols operates at the level of perceptual components – not at the level of holistic perceptual experiences. Through the use of selective attention, schematic representations of perceptual components are extracted from experience and stored in memory (e.g., individual memories of green, purr, hot). As memories of the same component become organized around a common frame, they implement a simulator that produces limitless simulations of the component (e.g., simulations of purr). Not only do such simulators develop for aspects of sensory experience, they also develop for aspects of proprioception (e.g., lift, run) and introspection (e.g., compare, memory, happy, hungry). Once established, these simulators implement a basic conceptual system that represents types, supports categorization, and produces categorical inferences. These simulators further support productivity, propositions, and abstract concepts, thereby implementing a fully functional conceptual system. Productivity results from integrating simulators combinatorially and recursively to produce complex simulations. Propositions result from binding simulators to perceived individuals to represent type-token relations. Abstract concepts are grounded in complex simulations of combined physical and introspective events. Thus, a perceptual theory of knowledge can implement a fully functional conceptual system while avoiding problems associated with amodal symbol systems. Implications for cognition, neuroscience, evolution, development, and artificial intelligence are explored"
I downloaded the PDF; hopefully I can find time to read it eventually. There are some gaps between the layers of abstraction presented in this abstract that I hope would be addressed by the full paper.
The paper discusses how this doesn't make sense, and how cognition must be tied to biological sensing to be "smart".
But, in practice, the only "rich enough" environment currently available is the physical world. And virtual classroom is no substitution...
Disclosure: I was put into a Montessori school when I was young.
These stresses are endurance activity (walk long hours), strength activity (fight or flight response) and famine.
The agent responsible for development of nervous system in these cases is brain-derived neurotrophic factor. It is responsible for creation of new neurons and branching of old ones and directly related to intellectual performance.
So your link to high level machine intelligence is wrong, I believe. I also think I explained above why do you feel smarter after a day of physical activity.
Alternate explanations are not refutations. Both could be factors.
Also, do you cheat and allow the entities "imagination" to be a perfectly modifiable simulation, or do you allow "errors" to enter into the simulation? What about the ethics of maintaining the integrity of the events and reactions that compose the entity, and the possible responsibility to ensure that reactions continue, or that those events have something to do with our "real" world and are not entirely simulated?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture
i.e. Why put so much effort into modelling the world to allow reasoning when you can interact with the world to answer the same questions.
[1] http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00SRV9UGE/ref=as_li_tl?i...
Odd, for me it's the other way around. I may feel more at peace, more relaxed and better able to fall asleep when I was in the wood, but I definitely don't feel as intellectually enriched as I do after reading a book or on the PC.
We learn about space, objects, and people by doing regular physical activity. We learn about things by touching them, throwing them, kicking them into the woods or on the roof. Our brains develop by manipulating and getting feedback from our environment.
I feel far less intelligent after a day spent in front of a computer or a book than I do after a day spent walking in the woods. I'm astonished by how brain-dead I become without physical activity, and how useless and un-creative it makes me.
Kids don't need 30 min of recess -- they need an entire day of working and learning with their hands and feet along with their brains.