Mike, well, for one thing, I am definitely not offering an algorithm. Pei is offering a non-axiomatic form of logic. But I am writing on a different subject. You posted a video showing a toddler that piles up blocks. I have a question. Suppose the blocks are made somewhat bigger, big enough so the toddler can not grab them. Or perhaps heavier, so he can't pick them up. What will the toddler do? I think he will push the blocks and try to align them. What do you think? Has anyone done this experiment?
I also thought of a toddler in the space station. Nothing stays where he puts it. But give him sticky blocks, or magnetized blocks. Will he not try to stick them all together? In a line, or just in a blob? Sergio -----Original Message----- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 8:04 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Analog Computation Well, everyone here thinks that algorithms are v. intelligent - if not now, then soon, with a little scaling and more sophisticated heuristics. Just a bit more of the same, old. I agree that they are only slavish routines (no matter how complex) and will never be more than a hyperspecialist form of low-level intelligence. But you haven't persuaded me (or I suspect anyone else) that you're actually offering anything different - not even *conceptually.* You *sound* like Pei who was - perhaps still is - offering a "non-algorithmic" form of logic - except that it turned out, when you pressed him, to be just another algorithm after all. Perhaps there are others like y'all, recognising the limits of algo's, but trying for magic sauce solutions. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sergio Pissanetzky" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:51 PM To: "AGI" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [agi] Analog Computation > Alan, > > That's nonsense. A camera, or a person, can look at a black and white > scene, light-on or light-off. A person will still recognize the image. > How? You can't tell. You can only write a monstruous program that will > do nothing but what you teach it to do. And you can't improve on that. > Your robots are clumsy, and you can't improve on that. Your > chess-playing machine can't play checkers, and can't even learn how. > You need a human to improve on that. > You > can't do OO-analysis, you need a human to do that. Your semantic web ... > where is it? You can't integrate systems, you need a human to do that. > This > is an AGI blog, and writing program is not AGI, it is using human > slaves to row. > > Sergio > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Grimes [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:46 PM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Analog Computation > > Sergio Pissanetzky wrote: >> I'll use a camera instead of the retina. When light hits a pixel in >> that camera, an electric signal is produced and travels to the brain, >> I mean the computer. That's it, that's the causal relation, light + >> pixel (and the pixel has a position, which is how spatial information >> gets encoded) cause signal. Multiply that by 1 million pixels, and >> you have a big causal set. From the signals alone, you can't tell >> that the camera is looking at your mother's face (in Hofstadter's >> words). But if you display the signals on a screen, your brain will >> immediately recognize the image. That's EI. I did it on a small scale >> on my PC, and I now want to do it on a larger scale. > > Do you have ANY idea how cameras work? > > For every pixel, for every scan interval, the sensor will be affected > by tens of thousands to millions of photons... > > What you get is a number. Typically, in most applications between 0 > and 255. > We can abstract that to some floating point value between 0 and 1 > where 0 is almost no light and 1 is sensor saturation. > > You are given a matrix of these, We will assume perfect pixels that > are vertically aligned and there are no sensor artifacts. > > Your AI must find and encode the simplest possible theory of what > objects must exist out in the world to have excited the sensors on > your camera in such a way. > > That is visual perception. > > I'm getting sick and tired of reading this ignorant crap out of you. I > expect it from the list clown but you should be smarter than this, > that's why I'm so disappointed in you. =( > > -- > 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/303/18883996-f0d58d57 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > d2 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; d2 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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
