But, one of the things that you (Mike) haven't yet understood is that deriving usable information for an AGI program from video is just as difficult as deriving it from text or mathematics or a IO system that "rewards" a program, and so on. If effective intelligence was as simple as watching a movie and associating some text or a phrase with an action that was recognized in the video then AGI would already be a done deal. The problem is figuring out a way to get a computer to do complicated things like that reliably.
There are some data objects in most IO media that are easy to discern. Some of them (not all of them) can sometimes (not all the time) be used to reliably indicate that a 'conceptualizable' action is taking place (or a 'conceptualizable' object is in a scene) but those moments of clarity are not dense enough to build a solid foundation for higher AGI. Jim Bromer On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > > > *From:* George Lakoff <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 10:11 PM > *To:* Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Cogling-L] The scope of image schemas > > Narayanan's X-schemas (or process schemas) characterize all events and > actions and actually control physical actions. So you're right about that. > We are now working on entity schemas, but we're not there yet. > > George > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Mike Tintner > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Lakoff:The idea behind image metaphors is simple. Images are structured >> by image >> schemas. A given image has multiple image schemas linked via neural >> binding >> to form a composite image schema ? or more than one. Metaphors map one >> image to another by mapping the source image schemas to the identical >> image >> schemas in the target >> >> George, >> >> Your exposition was v. useful. Can you/should you not extend the scope of >> image schemas? They structure presumably under >> >> *Images* : both >> >> *Verbal Images* & >> *Graphic/Photographic/Sensory Images*. >> >> and not just word images but : >> >> *Words/Language/Concepts" - period; *all words* are structured by image >> schemas, no? >> >> And from that one can one go on to argue - no? - that they structure >> >> *Moves/Movement* - period - that, for example, our reaching for a cup is >> structured by a schema. >> >> After all, language is used principally to structure actions: "Hand me >> that cup" - "Go to the other room". It makes sense that image schemas >> should structure not just verbally-mediated action, but all action, however >> mediated. The same mirror neurons that respond to (image-schema-structured) >> verbal accounts of action, also respond when just watching direct sensory >> images of agents executing those actions. >> >> Concepts/schemas arguably structure all the actions of living creatures. >> >> Comments? >> >> P.S. Personally, I think it's helpful to think of image schemas as >> "[loose] outlines" - esp. in connection with actions. Comments? >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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
