Re: [agi] How do we hear music
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:45 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: Let's crystallise the problem - all the unsolved problems of AGI - visual object recognition, conceptualisation, analogy, metaphor, creativity, language understanding and generation - are problems where you're dealing with freeform, irregular patchwork objects - objects which clearly do not fit any *patterns* - the raison d'etre of maths . To focus that , these objects do not have common parts in more or less precisely repeating structures - i.e. fit patterns. A cartoon and a photo of the same face may have no parts or structure in common. Ditto different versions of the Google logo. Zero common parts or structure Ditto cloud and mushroom - no common parts, or common structure. Yet the mind amazingly can see likenesses between all these things. Just about all the natural objects in the world , with some obvious exceptions, do not fit common patterns - they do not have the same parts in precisely the same places/structures. They may have common loose organizations of parts - e.g. mouths, eyes, noses, lips - but they are not precisely patterned. So you must explain how a mathematical approach, wh. is all about recognizing patterns, can apply to objects wh. do not fit patterns. You won't be able to - because if you could bring yourselves to look at the real world or any depictions of it other than geometric, (metacognitively speaking),you would see for yourself that these objects don't have precise patterns. It's obvious also that when the mind likens a cloud to a mushroom, it cannot be using any math. techniques. .. but those things do have patterns.. A mushroom (A) is like a cloud mushroom (B). if ( (input_source_A == An_image) AND ( input_source_B == An_image )) One pattern is that they both came from an image source, and I just used maths + logic to prove it. But we have to understand how the mind does do that - because it's fairly clearly the same technique the mind also uses to conceptualise even more vastly different forms such as those of chair, tree, dog, cat. And that technique - like concepts themselves - is at the heart of AGI. And you can sit down and analyse the problem visually, physically and see also pretty obviously that if the mind can liken such physically different objects as cloud and mushroom, then it HAS to do that with something like a fluid schema. There's broadly no other way but to fluidly squash the objects to match each other (there could certainly be different techniques of achieving that - but the broad principles are fairly self evident). Cloud and mushroom certainly don't match formulaically, mathematically. Neither do those different versions of a tune. Or the different faces of Madonna. But what we've got here is people who don't in the final analysis give a damn about how to solve AGI - if it's a choice between doing maths and failing, and having some kind of artistic solution to AGI that actually works, most people here will happily fail forever. Mathematical AI has indeed consistently failed at AGI. You have to realise, mathematicians have a certain kind of madness. Artists don't go around saying God is an artist, or everything is art. Only mathematicians have that compulsion to reduce everything to maths, when the overwhelming majority of representations are clearly not mathematical - or claim that the obviously irregular abstract arts (think Pollock) are mathematical. You're in good company - Wolfram, a brilliant fellow, thinks his patterns constitute a new kind of science, when the vast majority of scientists can see they only constitute a new kind of pattern, and do not apply to the real world. Look again - the brain is primarily a patchwork adapted to a patchwork, very extensively unpatterned world - incl. the internet itself - adapted primarily not to neat, patterned networks, but to tangled, patchwork, non-mathematical webs. See fotos. The outrageous one here is not me. -- From: Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.com Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:19 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How do we hear music Hi, Sometimes outrageous comments are a catalyst for better ideas. On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:48 +0200, Jan Klauck wrote: Mike Tintner trolled And maths will handle the examples given : same tunes - different scales, different instruments same face - cartoon, photo same logo - different parts [buildings/ fruits/ human figures] Unfortunately I forgot. The answer is somewhere down there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalue,_eigenvector_and_eigenspace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_identification No-one has successfully integrated these concepts
Re: [agi] How do we hear music
You have all missed one vital point. Music is repeating and it has a symmetry. In dancing (song and dance) moves are repeated in a symmetrical pattern. Question why are we programmed to find symmetry? This question may be more core to AGI than appears at first sight. Chearly an AGI system will have to look for symmetry and do what Hardy described as beautiful maths. - Ian Parker On 23 July 2010 04:02, Mike Archbold jazzbo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.comwrote: Why do we listen to a song sung in different scale and yet identify it as the same song.? Does it have something to do with the fundamental way in which we store memory? Probably due to evolution? Maybe at some point prior to words pitch was used in some variation. You (an astrolopithicus etc, the spelling is f-ed up, I know) is not going to care what key you are singing Watch out for that sabertooth tiger in. If you got messed up like that, can't hear the same song in a different key, you are cancelled out in evolution. Just a guess. Mike Archbold cheers, Deepak *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com/ *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Pretty worldchanging
this strikes me as socially worldchanging if it works - potentially leading to you-ain't-see-nothing-yet changes in world education ( commerce) levels over the next decade: http://www.physorg.com/news199083092.html Any comments on its technical massproduction viability ? --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Pretty worldchanging
The video says it has 2 GB of memory. I assume that's SSD and there is no disk. It's actually not hard to find a computer for $35. People are always throwing away old computers that still work. -- Matt Mahoney, matmaho...@yahoo.com From: Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Fri, July 23, 2010 9:50:44 AM Subject: [agi] Pretty worldchanging this strikes me as socially worldchanging if it works - potentially leading to you-ain't-see-nothing-yet changes in world education ( commerce) levels over the next decade: http://www.physorg.com/news199083092.html Any comments on its technical massproduction viability ? 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How do we hear music
Michael:but those things do have patterns.. A mushroom (A) is like a cloud mushroom (B). if ( (input_source_A == An_image) AND ( input_source_B == An_image )) One pattern is that they both came from an image source, and I just used maths + logic to prove it Michael, This is a bit desperate isn't it? They both come from image sources. So do a zillion other images, from Obama to dung - so they're all alike? Everything in the world is alike and metaphorical for everything else? And their images must be alike because they both have an 'o' and a 'u' in their words, (not their images)- unless you're a Chinese speaker. Pace Lear, that way madness lies. Why don't you apply your animation side to the problem - and analyse the images per images, and how to compare them as images? Some people in AGI although not AFAIK on this forum are actually addressing the problem. I'm sure *you* can too. -- From: Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.com Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:28 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] How do we hear music On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:45 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: Let's crystallise the problem - all the unsolved problems of AGI - visual object recognition, conceptualisation, analogy, metaphor, creativity, language understanding and generation - are problems where you're dealing with freeform, irregular patchwork objects - objects which clearly do not fit any *patterns* - the raison d'etre of maths . To focus that , these objects do not have common parts in more or less precisely repeating structures - i.e. fit patterns. A cartoon and a photo of the same face may have no parts or structure in common. Ditto different versions of the Google logo. Zero common parts or structure Ditto cloud and mushroom - no common parts, or common structure. Yet the mind amazingly can see likenesses between all these things. Just about all the natural objects in the world , with some obvious exceptions, do not fit common patterns - they do not have the same parts in precisely the same places/structures. They may have common loose organizations of parts - e.g. mouths, eyes, noses, lips - but they are not precisely patterned. So you must explain how a mathematical approach, wh. is all about recognizing patterns, can apply to objects wh. do not fit patterns. You won't be able to - because if you could bring yourselves to look at the real world or any depictions of it other than geometric, (metacognitively speaking),you would see for yourself that these objects don't have precise patterns. It's obvious also that when the mind likens a cloud to a mushroom, it cannot be using any math. techniques. .. but those things do have patterns.. A mushroom (A) is like a cloud mushroom (B). if ( (input_source_A == An_image) AND ( input_source_B == An_image )) One pattern is that they both came from an image source, and I just used maths + logic to prove it. But we have to understand how the mind does do that - because it's fairly clearly the same technique the mind also uses to conceptualise even more vastly different forms such as those of chair, tree, dog, cat. And that technique - like concepts themselves - is at the heart of AGI. And you can sit down and analyse the problem visually, physically and see also pretty obviously that if the mind can liken such physically different objects as cloud and mushroom, then it HAS to do that with something like a fluid schema. There's broadly no other way but to fluidly squash the objects to match each other (there could certainly be different techniques of achieving that - but the broad principles are fairly self evident). Cloud and mushroom certainly don't match formulaically, mathematically. Neither do those different versions of a tune. Or the different faces of Madonna. But what we've got here is people who don't in the final analysis give a damn about how to solve AGI - if it's a choice between doing maths and failing, and having some kind of artistic solution to AGI that actually works, most people here will happily fail forever. Mathematical AI has indeed consistently failed at AGI. You have to realise, mathematicians have a certain kind of madness. Artists don't go around saying God is an artist, or everything is art. Only mathematicians have that compulsion to reduce everything to maths, when the overwhelming majority of representations are clearly not mathematical - or claim that the obviously irregular abstract arts (think Pollock) are mathematical. You're in good company - Wolfram, a brilliant fellow, thinks his patterns constitute a new kind of science, when the vast majority of scientists can see they only constitute a new kind of pattern, and do not apply to the real world. Look again - the brain is primarily a patchwork adapted to a patchwork, very extensively unpatterned world - incl. the internet itself - adapted primarily not
Re: [agi] How do we hear music
No the answers are not there. That's complete rubbish; You won't be able to produce a point from your collective links that addresses any of the problems listed. You seem blithely unaware that these are all unsolved problems. From: L Detetive Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:54 AM To: agi Subject: Re: [agi] How do we hear music So you must explain how a mathematical approach, wh. is all about recognizing patterns, can apply to objects wh. do not fit patterns. No, we mustn't. You must read the links we've posted or stop asking the same things again and again. The answers are all there. -- L 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How do we hear music
And that is the proof that you didn' -- L --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] How do we hear music
And that is the proof that you didn't read anything (or didn't understand, more probably). But it was expected. -- L --- 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=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
