Mike, thanks for the link to the video (nice selection), but I don't think you get anything from my thousands of sentence explanations and definitions...
>This is a baby *creating* a course of action - >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMC58x6Y7xk >*creating* the building of a tower of bricks, >not *following* a preplanned course of action. Watch how he lays one brick on top of another. Consider the final structure. That's exploration not iteration. Well, this is exploration for a short time, then it is iteration. :) I you were capable to understand my sensori-motor explanations, this perfectly matches my previous explanations. It's a mere adjusting of coordinates, and the bricks are layed on the top of one-another, because of the following very simple laws (which is easily derivable from scratch - it's just the simplest, i.e. the one that comes first to mind, there aren't a lot of other options): - In the initial state the bricks just lay on the ground one one row? - The baby may catch them and move them, that's not "smart" enough. - The only possible "intelligent" action over two bricks is to put the second over the first one. You may put it on the sides too - yeah, but that's less "interesting", see below to see why. (One other reason is, because it's done first and may be done many times. Then it gets boring - too easy and predictable.) - You can hold only one brick in a hand, and brain/highest cognitive capabilities have a point of integration, the attention/eyes follow/fixate on just one brick in one hand. - Obviously the interesting parameters is the height, because it can be changed when the bricks are moved in a very specific manner (unlike the random motion that produces other results), which can be specified formally as: - The spatial coordinates of the bottom of the second brick should match the coordinates of the top of the first brick. The operation, "halting criteria" are as simple as *matching* (they are default criteria), the baby tries to match some parameters, and literary *"halting" - *when putting a brick on the another and pushing, the baby feels a force that stops it moving it further, that's like a "ground". When there's a force against the motion, a very straight "decision" is to stop pushing, it's a basic reaction, and it's learned easily - attempts to push a brick to the basic ground. Which in low level is: -- Motor commands move in a direction against the plane of the ground. -- Proprioceptive feedback that the hand doesn't move further, while in all other situation, when there's not an obstacle, when there's motor command to move in a given direction, the hand moves. That's how "obstacles" are generalized - you push, but your hand and the object in it doesn't move further. This is how the top of the brick is recognized and generalized as a "higher ground", another plane. Using generalization, the baby attempts to perform the same operations that on the basic ground. As mentioned - MATCHING and feeling the RESISTANCE are the simplest and most elementary criteria, which perfectly match the situation and the basic cognitive capabilities - the baby moves another brick to coordinates given by another brick. "Why exactly those bricks, and not others?" -- Because those were closer to the baby, because she saw those in the moment when she decided to catch a brick (and then her attention is "locked" for some time and the other bricks are ignored until that one is felt in the hand) etc. ... And if you did understand my other explanations on vision/geometry/3D-transformations, you wouldn't be that impressed that the baby notices that some parameters change when the hand is aligned with the objects and its coordinates are adjusted. Another thing that is very obvious, regarding how the baby recognizes that it should lay the bricks one on the another, is that no matter how she moves the bricks on the plane, the height of the topmost point of them stays the same. The only way to change this parameter further - *the height -* is to put another brick. Initially all the bricks are on the same plane, *they have the same height.* If you put the brick on another one which is on the ground, the total height would just match the first one (that's also interesting in the beginning, because now these heights match each-other height parameter). >The basic principles are the same that adults use to create searches on amazon, ebay, or anywhere on the net - and that underlie every real world activity, period.None of >them are algorithmic. Yes, the principles: maximize MATCH, optimize paramaers, get "bored" by too predictable input etc. are the same, but the levels of generality of a search in Amazon and this are so huge. And you're wrong in your classification - a search in Amazon is not "real world", this is an abstract natural language and social world, crystallized in stereotypes and social scenarios which were done thousands of times. "Real world" is a world of low generality such as of this baby, and the "creativity" in that domains is obvious and elementary - sorry if you can't see it. In the Amazon etc. examples it's obvious either, but the "instruments" and operations are in higher level coordinate systems, with other types of "coordinate adjustmenets" and other types of searches for maximizing the match between parameters. > Which part of your AGI course covers creativity/ real world reasoning? Which other AGI course covers creativity/ real world reasoning? None. Actually in most parts... :-D Since the focus is on sensori-motor generalizing hierarchies, as I explained 1000 times so far, every action of mind is eventually reducible to coordinate adjustments/transformations (a baby stacking bricks, or a student typing on a keyboard a query in google, or doing whatever). All that is "real world reasoning", because it's derived from sensory inputs and the output is ultimately in "motor outputs" - coordinate transformations in the lowest-level Universe space. Read my works and see any talk of Schmidhuber about creativity and interestingness. -- Todor http://research.twenkid.com http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike, > > It's you who doesn't get elementary things. > > Talking about high level crystallized activities that 20-30 year-old > humans do (and they are rather logical than "fluid"), do you have any idea > how many transformations happened in the brain for that time. > > You should give examples of babies or little children playing, not natural > language related activities of 30-year old researchers. > > What do you know about creativity? Show us a short story, a creative > drawing, a film, some dance move, musical piece (not that all those are > quite "mechanical" like everything). > > >Correct me - > > > >you're doing what everyone else does here, and thinking of : "how can I > find a *standard* way of solving this problem?" - > > > >so first you try to solve the particular problem, and second you try > to turn it into a standard way of solving problems like this. > >What you've missed is : this is a **creative** problem, a **one-off** - > as are all real world problems,.. > >By definition, **you didn't/don't have a pre-existing method of solving > it** - and no standard method is possible.. > >When you go to search for "good books on AI", you know something about > searching/research and also about AI, but you don't have a standard search > method or frame. > > 3294039430390 people around the world reach to the same "non-standard" > methods. > And in what year do you live, Mike, currently people have a decade or more > of using search-engines, they don't invent it. > Searching in a library or an encyclopedia is not that much different. The > first time it's "invented", then it's applied. > > Limited working-memory and the pruning of search is also how advertizing > and economy works, why the options on the top are selected and the rest is > usually ignored. > > People don't check everything, but what's near-by, what fills up their > working memory and is strong enough. > Then they stop searching and buy the washing powder brand which is > repeated the most on the TV, or click what's on top. > > As of "the best neuroscience researcher", it's the same search of who's > "on top" on some list, for whom the superlatives are said, the most > publications in "prestigious" sources, etc. > All those are very high level concepts, but I know you don't make a > difference between abstract and specific, you use to talk about specifics > and call it general - the set of all different chairs. > > >You have to **create** a method on the fly - in effect, create and > modify a "quasi-program"/plan-of-action as you go along. That is actually > what you did - your first (as distinct from your second) course of action. > > The first time you do. > > >Whatever search methods you used *won't* be directly applicable to > further searches. In the real world, every problem situation is > **different, ** even if also similar to others. ****Real world reasoning IS > creative reasoning***** > > You don't get, that it is different depending on the POV and the > resolution and level of generality. We're talking about language related > problems which are of high generality. > > > >Your next research task may be *who are the leading authorities on > neuroscience?" or: "what are the main branches of neuroscience?" For each > of these, you will have to create new > >methods of search. What you learned re AI may help, but only somewhat. > That's the nature of living in the real world . > > What new methods Mike, the guys who do those searches use to be 20-30 > years old, they have read enough of textbooks, if not something else. > That information is available at a glance in such literature, even > literary written as "branches" etc. > > >No one in AGI understands that the function of an AGI - real world agent > - is to deal with creative problems. Not standard rational problems for > which methods of solution exist. But new >problems for which no method > exists. > > What do you understand Mike, sometimes I think I'm not discussing with a > homo sapiens sapiens, you don't get a thing of what I'm explaining to you. > > > >AGI isn't about running pre-existing-plans-of-action to solve rational > problems, it's about forging them to solve creative problems. About a > machine not running , but creating a search. > > Eventually everything is "pre-existing", the molecules of your body are > preexisting anything you do consciously, and all of the actions mind can do > with the body are "preexisting" it just selects from them. > Sorry you lack capacity to get it, it seems not all homo sapiens can. > > -- > -- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov > http://research.twenkid.com > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com > > -- -- Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov http://research.twenkid.com http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------- 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
