John, as I wrote earlier, I'm very interested in learning more about your particular approach to: - Concept and pattern representation. (i.e. types of concept, patterns, relations?) - Concept creation. (searching for statistically signifcant spatiotemporal correlations, genetic programming, neural networks, ?) - Concept revision/optimization. You mention you use search techniques, could you be a little more specific?
Unfortunately you did not go into specifics yet. Since you wrote that your ideas are "firm enough to start doing experiments", I was hoping you could give a glimpse of the underlying idea's. I.e., what's your "You're speaking of a "high-level functional reactive programming language" exactly? One reason I'm interested is that there are many approaches to unsupervised learning of physical (or just graphical) concepts, and I'm thinking of Serre et al, Hawkins, neural network specialists (Geoffrey Hinton) and there could be many more. But none of these theories I know of are strong enough to extract high-level concepts such as 'gravity'. Now when I imagine a hypothetical system capable of extracting such thing as 'gravity', he would have to go through a process of many stages, one of the first to learn about the general spatial phenomenon 'object', later the temporal phenomenon 'velocity', and would eventually find out that the vertical element of the velocity vector is ever decreasing with constant amount. Now, a system that is capable of doing this without any prior knowledge is pretty damn interesting, and you're promising it. I've been doing some vaguely similar experiments (minus motor feedback) with a multilayer spatio-temporal pattern classifier network and concluded that it's not easy (in contrary) to let a system extract concepts like 'gravity'. Kind regards, Durk Kingma On 5/12/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Friday 11 May 2007 08:26:03 pm Pei Wang wrote:
As you can see from my comment and paper, I agree with your idea in > its basic spirit. However, I think your above presentation is too > vague, and far from enough for semantic analysis. True enough -- my ideas tend to form like planets, a la the nebular hypothesis :-) But at this point, having gnawed on them for a few years, I think they're firm enough to start doing experiments.
On 5/13/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 12 May 2007 09:00:46 am Pei Wang wrote: > I see --- it is fine to stress the procedural aspect of concept given > your context. However, to make your design flexible and general, even > in that case you will still need some "language" to specify your > concepts, rather than in a pin-ball-specific manner, right? Sure -- tho in my case it looks more like a very high-level functional reactive programming language than FOPL. Josh
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
