S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tintner [*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:53 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Vladimir
On 10/11/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edward,
Thanks for interesting info - but if I may press you once more. You talk
of different systems, but you don't give one specific example of the kind of
useful ( significant for AGI) inferences any of them can produce -as I do
with my
When commenting on a lot of different items in a posting, in-line responses
make more sense and using ALL-CAPS in one accepted way of doing it in an email
client/platform neutral manner. I for one do it often when responding to
individual emails so I don't mind at all. I do *not* associate it
IN RESPONSE TO MIKE TINTNERS Thu 10/11/2007 11:47 PM POST. AGAIN MY
RESPONSE IS IN BLUE ALL CAPS.
=
Edward,
Thanks for interesting info - but if I may press you once more. You talk
of different systems, but you don't give one specific example of
On 12/10/2007, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) WITH REGARD TO BOOKWORLD -- IF ALL THE WORLD'S BOOKS WERE IN
ELECTRONIC
FORM AND YOU HAD A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF AGI HARDWARD TO READ THEM ALL I
THINK
YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GAIN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORLD KNOWLEDGE
FROM THEM,
AND
Sounds like a good analogy. If it can play fetch, it can play
hide-and-seek. [And exactly the sort of thing that a true AGI must do -
absolute heart of AGI].
The question, wh. I wouldn't think that complex to answer, is: how did it
connect the action/activity of fetch, to the activity of
MT:Can you think of a single analogy or metaphor, in addition, that is purely
symbolic?
Ben:I don't really understand your definitions of the terms analogy, metaphor
or symbolic...
Analogy: He eats like a pig.
He started posting in this forum like a bull in a china shop.
Metaphor:
On 10/12/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
No. Everything is grounded. This is a huge subject. Perhaps you should
read:
Where Mathematics Comes From, written by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez,
You really do need to know about Lakoff/Fauconnier/Mark Johnson/Mark
Turner.
Ben: I really don't see why you think that, say, mathematical theorem-proving
needs to be sensorially grounded...
Of course sensorimotor reality is a potent source of analogies to guide
mathematical theorem-proving, but, surely there can be purely abstract
reasoning without a direct or useful
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
Generation of such abstract-description-based scenes can be a tedious
process at start, involving calculations 'by hand' on part of AGI, but
gradually through introduction of intermediate concepts this process
will become more intuitive and finally world model will be as
Nor BTW are am I arguing at all against symbols, (you might care to look
at the Picture Tree thread I started a few months ago to better understand
my thinking here) - the brain (and any true AGI, I believe) uses symbols,
outline graphics [or Johnson's image schemata] and images in parallel,
On 10/12/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me be brutally challenging here : the reason you guys are attached to
purely symbolic models of the world is not because you have any real
evidence of their being productive (for AGI), but because they're what you
know how to do. Hence
Enjoying trolling, Ben?:-)
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
On 10/12/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben
I didn't mean that those abstract models need to be explicitly coded
by AGI programmers, but than abstract model can be explained (or
taught) to AGI and it then can use it to infer various relations among
objects of the scene which are not explicitly given in textual
description. This modeling of
Ben,
You are making a v. strong claim here. If you can back it up with:
a) a general text exposition so that even a techno-idiot like me (
non-technical psychologists/ philosophers) can understand
b) a technical exposition
c) that magical video demo
you have your breakthrough - sufficient to
]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:22 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
When commenting on a lot of different items in a posting, in-line
responses make more sense and using ALL-CAPS in one accepted way of doing
it in an email client/platform neutral manner
.
- Original Message -
From: Edward W. Porter
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
IN RESPONSE TO MIKE TINTNER'S Thu 10/11/2007 11:47 PM POST. AGAIN MY
RESPONSE IS IN BLUE ALL CAPS
, October 12, 2007 8:32 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Edward,
Thanks again for a detailed response (I really do appreciate it).
Your interesting examples of systems confirm my casual impressions of what
can actually be done - and my reluctance to shell
-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:10 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Vladimir,
I'm not trying to be difficult or critical but I
: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Validimir and Mike,
For humans, much of our experience is grounded on sensory information, and
thus much of our understanding is based on experiences and analogies derived
largely from the physical world. So
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tintner [_mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:10 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Vladimir,
I'm not trying to be difficult or critical but I literally
(617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: a [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:11 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
I think that building a human-like reasoning system without /visual/
perception
English?
- - - - -
Maybe you'd like to rethink your assumptions . . . .
- Original Message -
From: a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
I think that building a human-like reasoning system
Mark Waser wrote:
Concepts cannot be grounded without vision.
So . . . . explain how people who are blind from birth are
functionally intelligent.
It is impossible to completely understand natural language without
vision.
So . . . . you believe that blind-from-birth people don't
.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Mark Waser wrote:
Concepts cannot be grounded without vision.
So . . . . explain how people who are blind from birth are functionally
intelligent.
It is impossible to completely understand
Mark Waser wrote:
I'll buy internal spatio-perception (i.e. a three-d world model) but
not the visual/vision part (which I believe is totally unnecessary).
Why is *vision* necessary for grounding or to completely understand
natural language?
My mistake. I misinterpreted the definitions of
).
Why can't echo-location lead to spatial perception without vision? Why
can't touch?
- Original Message -
From: a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Mark Waser wrote:
I'll buy internal
Mark Waser wrote:
spatial perception cannot exist without vision.
How does someone who is blind from birth have spatial perception then?
Vision is one particular sense that can lead to a 3-dimensional model
of the world (spatial perception) but there are others (touch
echo-location hearing
Mark Waser wrote:
Why can't echo-location lead to spatial perception without vision?
Why can't touch?
For instance, how can humans mentally manipulate or mentally rotate
spatial objects without visualizing them?
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe
-
From: a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Mark Waser wrote:
I'll buy internal spatio-perception (i.e. a three-d world model) but not
the visual/vision part (which I believe is totally unnecessary
people don't completely
understand English?
- - - - -
Maybe you'd like to rethink your assumptions . . . .
- Original Message - From: a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
I think that building
MW:
Concepts cannot be grounded without vision.
So . . . . explain how people who are blind from birth are functionally
intelligent.
It is impossible to completely understand natural language without
vision.
MW:So . . . . you believe that blind-from-birth people don't completely
understand
physics but for development and testing purposes having it figure that out
would be challenging to build.
John
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
...and also why can't 3D world model be just described abstractly, by
presenting
, 2007 7:10 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
This is how I envision it when a text only AGI is fed its world view
as text only. The more text it processes the more a spatial physical
system would emerge internally assuming it is fed text that describes
physical
Vladimir: ..and also why can't 3D world model be just described abstractly,
by
presenting the intelligent agent with bunch of objects with attached
properties and relations between them that preserve certain
invariants? Spacial part of world model doesn't seem to be more
complex than general
purposes having it figure that out
would be challenging to build.
John
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
...and also why can't 3D world model be just described abstractly, by
presenting the intelligent agent with bunch
In 2000, Hutter [21,22] proved that finding the optimal behavior of a
rational agent is equivalent to compressing its observations.
Essentially he proved Occam's Razor [23], the simplest answer is
usually the correct answer.
Vision is the simplest answer.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI:
PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Vladimir: ..and also why can't 3D world model be just described
abstractly,
by
presenting the intelligent agent with bunch of objects with attached
properties and relations between them that preserve certain
invariants
-
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:53 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
Vladimir: ..and also why can't 3D world model be just described abstractly,
by
presenting the intelligent agent
Just to underline my point about the common sense foundations of logic and
general intelligence - I came across this from : Education Learning to
Think by Lauren B Resnick - (and a section entitled General Reasoning -
Improving Intelligence).
Recent research in science problem solving shows
These 'recastings' of problems are essentially inference steps, where
each step is evident and is performed by trained expert's intuition.
Sequence of such simple steps can constitute complex inference which
leads to solution of complex problem. This recasting isn't necessarily
related to physical
Vladimir,
No I'm sure the problem-solving isn't all down to recasting in terms of
physical models. But can you think of a scientific problem area, where such
recasting isn't involved?
(Very tangentially, what comes to my mind is chess. I'm confident that human
problemsolving here - and the
]
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Nesov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:50 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules.. P.S.
These 'recastings' of problems are essentially inference steps, where each
step is evident
On 10/11/07, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vladimir,
No I'm sure the problem-solving isn't all down to recasting in terms of
physical models. But can you think of a scientific problem area, where such
recasting isn't involved?
I just tried to provide my reason for considering it a
44 matches
Mail list logo
