Dave:You can't solve the problems with your approach either
This is based on knowledge of what examples? Zero?
I have given you one instance of s.o. [a technologist not a philosopher like
me] who is if only in broad principle, trying to proceed in a non-encoding,
analog-comparison direction. There must be others who are however crudely
trying and considering what can be broadly classified as analog approaches. How
much do you know, or have you even thought about such approaches? [Of course,
computing doesn't have to be either/or analog-digital but can be both]
My point 6) BTW is irrefutable, completely irrefutable, and puts a finger bang
on why geometry obviously cannot cope with real objects, ( although I can and
must, do a much more extensive job of exposition).
From: David Jones
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 5:44 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Mike,
Your claim that you have to reject encoded and simpler descriptions of the
world to solve AGI is unfounded. You can't solve the problems with your
approach either. So, this is argument is going no where. You won't admit that
you're faced with the same problems no matter how you approach it. I do admit
that your ideas on transformations can be useful, but not at all by themselves
and definitely not in the absense of math or geometry. They also are certainly
not a solution to any of the problems I'm considering. Regardless, we both face
the same problems of uncertainty and encoding.
Dave
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
General point: you keep talking as if algorithms *work* for visual AGI - they
don't - they simply haven't. Unless you take a set of objects carefully chosen
to be closely aligned and close in overall form- and then it's not AGI. But in
general the algorithmic patterned approach has been a bust - because natural
objects as well as clusters of diverse artificial objects are not patterned.
You can see this. It's actually obvious if you care to look.
Re 2) It may well be that you've gotta have a body to move around to
different POV's for objects, and to touch those objects and use another sense
or two to determine the outlines. I haven't thought all this through at all,
but you've got to realise that the whole of evolution tells you that sensing
the world is a *multi*-*common*-sense affair, and not a single one. You're
trying to isolate a sense - and insisting that that's the only way things can
be done, even while you along with others are continuously failing. Respect
and learn from evolution.
Re 1) I again haven't thought this through, but it sounds like you're again
assuming that your AGI vision must automatically meet adult, educated criteria.
Presumably it takes time to perceive and appreciate the 3-d ness of objects.And
3-d is a mathematical, highly evolved idea. Yes, objects are solid, but they
were never 3-d until geometry was invented a mere 2,000 or so years ago.
Primitive people see very differently from modern people. Read McLuhan on this
(v. worthwhile generally for s.o. like you).
And no, rocks are simply *not* mathematical objects. There are no rocks in
geometry period. *You* can use a mathematically-based program to draw a rock,
but that's down to your AGI mind, not the mathematics.
[Look BTW how you approach all these things - you always start mathematically
- but it is a simple fact that maths. was invented only a few thousand years
ago, animals and humans happily existed and saw the world without it, and maths
objects are **abstract fictions** - they do not exist in the real world, as
maths itself will tell you - and you have to be able to *see* that - to see and
know that there is a diff. between a postulated math square and any concrete,
real object version of a square. What visual processing are you going to use to
tell the difference between a math and a real object? Are you saying you can
use maths to do that?
Non-sense.
3) I am starting with simple natural irregular objects. I can recognize that
rocks may have too large a range of irregularity for first visual perception.
(It'd be v.g. to know how soon infants recognize them). Maybe then you need
something with a narrower range like "shopping bags". I'd again study the
development of infant perception - that will give you the best ideas re what to
start with.
But what's vital is that your objects be natural and irregular, not narrow AI
formulaic squares.
5) A fluid transform is er a fluid transform. What are all the ways a
raindrop as per the vid can transform into a different form - all the ways that
the outline of the drop can continuously reshape. Jeez they're pretty well
infinite, except that they're constrained. The drop isn't suddenly going to
become a square or rectilinear. And you can presumably invent new lines/fields
of transformation wh. could turn out to be true.
But if you think of all those drop outlines transforming, they will indeed be
fluid and irregular, and not follow any general geometric pattern.
Look at it another way, think of all the ways you can draw (and effectively
transform) an outline cartoon of a human face. You can draw/recognize
everything from a triangular to a square to a potato to an oval to a serrated
outline of a face as human. Treat each outline as proceeding from the previous
one, and you have an example of the extent of fluid transformations.
Fluid transforms are one demonstration of "the power of the imagination" - an
artistic not a geometric power. Broadly all this is obvious, even if it can be
better put into words - and must also be drawn & cartooned to communicate
properly.
6) At the end, you're getting into absurdities. Geometry can't handle any of
those natural objects. You're merely claiming it can without the slightest
attempt to demonstrate or reason.
Here is a graphic demonstration of what you're trying to claim - in effect,
you're saying
"geometry can define 'a piece of plasticine' [and by extension any standard
transformation of a piece of plasticine as in a playroom]"
That's a nonsense. A piece of plasticine is a **freeform** object - it can be
transformed into an unlimited diversity of shapes/forms (albeit with
constraints).
Formulae - the formulae of geometry - can only define **set form** objects,
with a precise form and structure. There are no exceptions. Black is not white.
Homogeneous is not heterogeneous. Set form is not freeform.
All the objects I list - all irregular objects - are freeform objects.
You are ironically misunderstanding the very foundations and rationale of
geometry. Geometry - with its set form forms - was invented precisely because
mathematicians didn't like the freeform nature of the world - wanted to create
set forms (in the footsteps of the rational technologists who preceded them) -
that they could control and reduce to formulae and reproduce with ease.
Freeform rocks are a lot more complex to draw and make and reproduce than set
form rectangular bricks.
Set forms are not free forms. They are the opposite.
(And while you and others will continue to *claim* in theory absolute
setform=freeform nonsense, you will in practice always, always stick to setform
objects. Some part of you knows the v.obvious truth ).
From: David Jones
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 3:51 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI
Mike,
Using the image itself as a template to match is possible. In fact it has
been done before. But it suffers from several problems that would also need
solving.
1) Images are 2D. I assume you are also referring to 2D outlines. Real
objects are 3D. So, you're going to have to infer the shape of the object...
which means you are no longer actually transforming the image itself. You are
transforming a model of the image, which would have points, curves, dimensions,
etc. Basically, a mathematical shape :) No matter how much you disapprove of
encoding info, sometimes it makes sense to do it.
2) Creating the first outline and figuring out what to outline is not trivial
at all. So, this method can only be used after you can do that. There is a lot
more uncertainty involved here than you seem to realize. First, how do you even
determine the outline? That is an unsolved problem. So, not only will you have
to try many transformations with the right outline, you have to try many with
wrong outlines, increase the possibilities (exponentially?). It looks like you
need a way to score possibilities and decide which ones to try.
3) "rock" is a word and words are always learned by induction along with
other types of reasoning before we can even consider it a type of object. So,
you are starting with a somewhat unrepresentative or artificial problem.
4) Even the same rock can look very different from different perspectives. In
fact, how do you even match the same rock? Please describe how your system
would do this. It is not trivial at all. And you will soon see that there is an
extremely large amount of uncertainty. Dealing with this type of uncertainty is
the central problem of AGI. The central problem is not fluid schemas.Even if I
used this method, I would be stuck with the same exact uncertainty problems.
So, you're not going to get passed them like this. The same research on
explanatory and non-monotonic type reasoning must still be done.
5) what is a fluid transform? You can't just throw out words. Please define
it. You are going to realize that your representation is pretty much geometric
anyway. Regardless, it will likely be equivalent. Are you going to try every
possible transformation? Nope. That would be impossible. So, how do you decide
what transformations to try? When is a transformation too large of a change to
consider it the same rock? When is it too large to consider it a different
rock?
6) Are you seriously going to "transform" every object you've every tried to
outline? This is going to be prohibitively costly in terms of processing.
Especially because you haven't defined how you're going to decide what to
transform and what not to. So, before you can even use this algorithm, you're
going to have to use something else to decide what is a possible candidate and
what is not.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
Now let's see **you** answer a question. Tell me how any
algorithmic/mathematical approach of any kind actual or in pure principle can
be applied to recognize "raindrops falling down a pane" - and to "predict"
their movement?
Like I've said many times before, we can't predict everything, and we
certainly shouldn't try. But
http://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/263778/beautiful-rain-drops.html
or to recognize a "rock"?
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/LPR/adams.jpg
or a [filled] shopping bag?
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200801/r215609_837743.jpg
http://www.sustainableisgood.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/29/shoppingbags.jpg
http://thegogreenblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/plastic_shopping_bag.jpg
or if you want a real killer, google some vid clips of amoebas in oozing
motion?
PS In every case, I suggest, the brain observes different principles of
transformation - for the most part unconsciously. And they can be of various
kinds not just direct natural transformations, of course. It's possible, it
occurs to me, that the principle that applies to rocks might just be something
like "whatever can be carved out of stone"
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
