If economical invariance was feasible we would all be doing it. It just doesn't make sense as a fundamental method of intelligence. Most people do very poorly with visual transformation parts of IQ tests. I used to be able to do OK on them because I used to have a child-like fascination with visual rotation and I was able to carefully imagine the rotation of a number of rectangular blocks by imagining the rotations one at a time. In other words, I was able to improve my score by treating the problem as a combination of a visual 'computational' problems (by parts) and as a matching correspondence for the rotation of the individual parts. Part of it was learned from working with examples and part of it was visual projection.
Economical methods of Universal Intelligence are also infeasible. It would be nice if there was a way to consider all the associations of all possible 'interpretations' of context sensitive sub-strings given a string (or a compilation of recognizable data from a 'scene') but there just isn't one. Without some key methods which would make ideas like this feasible the belief that you will solve the outstanding AGI problems by relying on methods like this is unrealistic. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
