Sergio Pissanetzky wrote: > The situation is a little different with your own calculations. You > mentioned you had been studying compression in the retina. This is exactly > what I want to look into. Can you dig that up, or perhaps just remember what > it was that you were trying to do? I'd like to review that material off > line, if you don't mind. Also, it would be very useful to find experiments > where the actual output from the retina itself, without involving any other > neurons, was directly measured with electrodes. Then, if we knew this, we > would be able to compare that output with the input and determine if it is > bound or not.
Heh. ;) My work in 2004 ended abruptly when my hard drive crashed. =P Basically I created a M by n matrix, then populated it by scanning the input picture with this matrix: -1/12 -1/6 -1/12 -1/6 1 -1/6 -1/12 -1/6 -1/12 (with adjustments for edges and corners). I then re-scaled the picture by 1/2 by averaging groups of 4 pixels and re-applied my algorithm. I repeated the process until the input image was uselessly tiny. The algorithm introduced a very significant noise signal but it basically worked. I could probably do much better performance wise by using vector operations, even still the machine I had back then could do it in about ten seconds, running on Squeak 3.6 (Smalltalk). The magic happens in V1 of the occipital lobe where the cortical columns https://www.google.com/search?q=cortical+column&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_column learn to detect edges, corners, curves, orientation, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance_column > EI is a map, only I didn't make it. It's a natural map. What worries me about you is that you don't seem to be open to further expanding your toolbox at this point. It is possible that my concerns about it are ill-founded, that there is an explanation of how to deal with spatial information within the framework of your theory, but I don't see it yet. Furthermore, the way I see it, everything in the brain must either be implemented or explained at a higher level. The extremely important process of applying learned knowledge doesn't seem to be covered by EI. Also, one of the more celebrated features of human intelligence is the ability to set logic aside from time to time and be creative. Your algorithm doesn't seem to leave much room for that; and yes it is important for getting off of "false summits" in the terminology of hill-climbing algorithms, as well as communication with marginally rational agents. So yeah, I'm going to need some evidence that you can broaden your perspective or I'll be forced to write you off as a high-functioning crackpot. -- E T F N H E D E D Powers are not rights. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
