You haven't drawn anything. Without a drawing, it's impos. to communicate. You are suggesting your dots graph was an invariant representation? Of what?:
From: Sergio Pissanetzky Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:51 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me Easy. You just look at the line. You start with 100 million dots of light, apply EI, and get a structure with 1 single block at the top, which is the line. Then, you can play with it all you want. Give it a name, examine its metaphysical implications. But the fact is, there is really nothing else. Your brain captures 100M dots of light, that's it. And I have my machine, this is an AGI blog and I work on a machine. What you make of the 100M dots of light is your business. Rememeber I sent you some invariant representations that had many points? Sergio From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:35 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me Draw me an invariant representation of any object in the world - per your or any other method. And if you want to get your knickers into a terrible twist, draw me an invariant representation of "line" (a line - the graphical entity) or your fave: "dot" (the graphical entity). From: Sergio Pissanetzky Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:23 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me Mike, You are fast! Well, yes, I do, it is emergent inference. You start from a mathematical representation of knowledge known as a causal set, which is the same as as finite algorithm, and it maps directly via the inference to a hierarchy that is invariant and represents the same knowledge. There is no question about that. There is no question either about the physical reality of these hierarchies. Physics says that symmetries result in structures. The causal set has symmetries, and the structures follow as a result. That simple. The question would be to explain how something so physical, so real, that we observe all the time, overlaps with concepts. Or to put it diferently, what if anything is different between a concept and a mathematical/physical hierarchy. And, if there is a difference, whether that difference is essential or just circumstancial, perhaps something that philosophers had to assume in order to continue their thinking and may be now willing to change in view of the evidence. Sergio From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:00 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me Sergio: I noticed that Jeff Hawkins in On Intelligence writes about "invariant representations," which are hierarchies, but never explains how they come into existence. I am just a little confused. I wonder whether you have an outstanding point there. Everyone *talks* about "invariant representations". Does anyone anywhere have any AI-worthy explanation of their nature/origin whatsoever? (Of course, invariant representations overlap with concepts. There are psych/phil. explanatory theories of concepts, but that's why I put in "AI-worthy". I suspect they are all v. vague). AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
