Sergio Pissanetzky wrote: > Alan, > > alright, but what are those numbers? What are their units?
Luminosity, scale is 0.0 to 1.0. > Why do they form a matrix? Well, a grid of values, basically I took a 3x3 sub-matrix from the input, multiplied each value by the matrix shown then summed. > What picture did you scan? A standard issue naughty picture that happened to be in my collection at the time. ;) > What does your algorithm do? Attempt to replicated the computations attributed to the human retina as described in a neural science text I was reading at the time. > No need to > reply to all that indetail, I am just trying to understand how you think > about a retina. If your work is unrecoverable it's OK. Have you followed any > literature about this experiment? Not really. There is extensive literature about the primate visual system. >> ALAN SAID: >> 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. > SERGIO REPLIES: > Alan, you are accurately describing the branching point, the point where > scientists are confronted with complexity, feel that there must be > "something" there, some form of inference, don't know what to do about it, > and branch out into a variety of approaches. Not really. I'm not going off of some fuzzy feeling based on quality, I have an observed fact and I'm requiring an explanation. A successful theory must either be able to derive that observed fact or it must show that there's a deeper explanation which shows that the observation is irrelevant. I would have to turn in my critical thinking badge if I were to fail to demand (or come up with) answers to these. > At that point, Michael Behe went the way of Intelligent Design. Stuart > Kauffman proposed a quantum-mechanical brain. Betrand Russell proposed > boolean logic, later proved incapable to do the job by Church and Turing. > AI'ers designated that as "the problem" and tried to "engineer" it. They > wanted to use their own intelligence to "solve the problem" by way of a > man-made solution. They got nowhere in 60 years. Ben proposed Solomonoff's > inductive inference, but realized it's not enough and decided to engineer > the rest. Just like the AI'ers. I proposed EI. Pure inference, no > engineering. Nothing bad about engineering, it's just that engineers were > not there when evolution created the brain. The brain, and its intelligence, > can not be engineered. All physical artifacts, including computer programs, are engineered and have multiple variables that can be manipulated. Even if EI was as pure and capable as you claim, it would have to be embedded in a highly-engineered system in order to function in the real world. My main concern is showing whether EI can be applied to the data types that will certainly be required and, by extension, all the other reasonable types of both concrete and highly abstract data. I like set theory because it is one of the most powerful parts of mathematics. That's why I'm still talking to you. But SOMEBODY has to show me how spatial information, as found in the sense of touch and the sense of sight, can be encoded so that EI can be applied. Then we can get into temporal information and and symbolic information etc... Granted, symbolic information is (probably) almost a freebie. -- 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
