The fact that you are using experiment and the fact that you recognized that AGI needs to provide both explanation and expectations (differentiated from the false precision of 'prediction') shows that you have a grasp of some of the philosophical problems, but the fact that you would rely on a primary principle of over simplification (as differentiated from a method that does not start with a rule that eliminates the very potential of possibilities as a *general* rule of intelligence) shows that you don't fully understand the problem. Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote: > A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning: * > > We prefer the hypothesis or explanation that ***expects* more > observations. If both explanations expect the same observations, then the > simpler of the two is preferred (because the unnecessary terms of the more > complicated explanation do not add to the predictive power).* > > *Why are expected events so important?* They are a measure of 1) > explanatory power and 2) predictive power. The more predictive and the more > explanatory a hypothesis is, the more likely the hypothesis is when compared > to a competing hypothesis. > > Here are two case studies I've been analyzing from sensory perception of > simplified visual input: > The goal of the case studies is to answer the following: How do you > generate the most likely motion hypothesis in a way that is general and > applicable to AGI? > *Case Study 1)* Here is a link to an example: animated gif of two black > squares move from left to right<http://practicalai.org/images/CaseStudy1.gif>. > *Description: *Two black squares are moving in unison from left to right > across a white screen. In each frame the black squares shift to the right so > that square 1 steals square 2's original position and square two moves an > equal distance to the right. > *Case Study 2) *Here is a link to an example: the interrupted > square<http://practicalai.org/images/CaseStudy2.gif>. > *Description:* A single square is moving from left to right. Suddenly in > the third frame, a single black square is added in the middle of the > expected path of the original black square. This second square just stays > there. So, what happened? Did the square moving from left to right keep > moving? Or did it stop and then another square suddenly appeared and moved > from left to right? > > *Here is a simplified version of how we solve case study 1: > *The important hypotheses to consider are: > 1) the square from frame 1 of the video that has a very close position to > the square from frame 2 should be matched (we hypothesize that they are the > same square and that any difference in position is motion). So, what > happens is that in each two frames of the video, we only match one square. > The other square goes unmatched. > 2) We do the same thing as in hypothesis #1, but this time we also match > the remaining squares and hypothesize motion as follows: the first square > jumps over the second square from left to right. We hypothesize that this > happens over and over in each frame of the video. Square 2 stops and square > 1 jumps over it.... over and over again. > 3) We hypothesize that both squares move to the right in unison. This is > the correct hypothesis. > > So, why should we prefer the correct hypothesis, #3 over the other two? > > Well, first of all, #3 is correct because it has the most explanatory power > of the three and is the simplest of the three. Simpler is better because, > with the given evidence and information, there is no reason to desire a more > complicated hypothesis such as #2. > > So, the answer to the question is because explanation #3 expects the most > observations, such as: > 1) the consistent relative positions of the squares in each frame are > expected. > 2) It also expects their new positions in each from based on velocity > calculations. > 3) It expects both squares to occur in each frame. > > Explanation 1 ignores 1 square from each frame of the video, because it > can't match it. Hypothesis #1 doesn't have a reason for why the a new square > appears in each frame and why one disappears. It doesn't expect these > observations. In fact, explanation 1 doesn't expect anything that happens > because something new happens in each frame, which doesn't give it a chance > to confirm its hypotheses in subsequent frames. > > The power of this method is immediately clear. It is general and it solves > the problem very cleanly. > > *Here is a simplified version of how we solve case study 2:* > We expect the original square to move at a similar velocity from left to > right because we hypothesized that it did move from left to right and we > calculated its velocity. If this expectation is confirmed, then it is more > likely than saying that the square suddenly stopped and another started > moving. Such a change would be unexpected and such a conclusion would be > unjustifiable. > > I also believe that explanations which generate fewer incorrect > expectations should be preferred over those that more incorrect > expectations. > > The idea I came up with earlier this month regarding high frame rates to > reduce uncertainty is still applicable. It is important that all generated > hypotheses have as low uncertainty as possible given our constraints and > resources available. > > I thought I'd share my progress with you all. I'll be testing the ideas on > test cases such as the ones I mentioned in the coming days and weeks. > > Dave > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
