On 2012/07/21, at 17:13, Mike Tintner wrote:

> But Plato didn't say what it was, Hawkins hasn't said what it is, in fact no 
> one has said it  ... and it doesn't exist.


OK, I can admit that invariant representation doesn't exist.

Then how about thinking pattern recognition function to be invariance,
while there would be no such thing as invariant *representation*?

Of course, you can deny this too, but then any epistemology might
not hold, or if you are that radical, I would not add words for it...

-- 
Naoya A.

On 2012/07/21, at 17:13, Mike Tintner wrote:

> Arakawa:When a neural system learns some pattern, say that of a line segment,
> it recognizes line segments regardless of their orientation or length
> (hence 'invariant").
> 
> What Sergio was saying was : "wait a moment, do I really understand this - 
> what Hawkins is saying...?"
> 
> To do that, you first have to say as you have done: "ok what say would be an 
> invariant representation of a line...?"
> 
> At this stage, you can casually float over the problem, and think: " oh well, 
> there must be an invariant representation of  a line... stands to reason"
> 
> But if you take the second step, and actually start thinking about different 
> kinds of line, and what could possibly be an invariant representation of them 
> all - that could be transformed into them all - you will find there is no 
> such invariant representation - and Hawkins has neither posited one in 
> relation to any object, incl. Jennifer Aniston (or a line), nor explained how 
> it could be universally transformed into any variation of a given object.
> 
> Similarly, people are thinking : "of course the world consists of patterns.. 
> stands to reason.. I know that this is a "street" and by god it looks like 
> that "street" to me, and that  other one - I recognize all these "streets" 
> without a problem - therefore there must be a common "pattern",invariant 
> representation" which enables me to recognize them all.
> 
> But people never go to the second step, and start thinking about what form 
> those patterns (of things like a street) could take. If you do, you'll find 
> there are neither such patterns in the world, nor in your mind.
> 
> That's not how the brain achieves its magic feat of recognizing the 
> similarity between diverse forms, objects and scenes.
> 
> Everyone here tends to be Platonist - "of course there is an essential idea/ 
> invariant representation/ pattern for objects - an essential "chair".."
> 
> But Plato didn't say what it was, Hawkins hasn't said what it is, in fact no 
> one has said it  ... and it doesn't exist.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ARAKAWA Naoya" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 3:10 AM
> To: "AGI" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: How the Brain Works -- new H+ magazine article, by me
> 
>> On 2012/07/21, at 4:59, Mike Tintner wrote:
>> 
>>> 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).
>> 
>> I interpreted "invariant representations" in the writing of Hawkins as
>> learned patterns.
>> When a neural system learns some pattern, say that of a line segment,
>> it recognizes line segments regardless of their orientation or length
>> (hence 'invariant").
>> "Invariant representations" in a neural network would be distributed
>> so that one cannot point out saying, for example, *this* is the
>> representation of a line segment...
>> 
>> * The Gibsonian invariance might be a different notion while he may
>> have made the term popular among cognitive scientists (?).
>> -- 
>> Naoya ARAKAWA



-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to