Hi John, Re your idea that there should be an "intermediate-level" representation:
1. Obviously, we do not currently know how the brain stores that representation. Things get insanely complex as neuroscientists go higher up the visual pathways from the primary visual cortex. 2. I advocate using a symbolic / logical representation for the 3D (in fact, 4D) space. There might be some misunderstanding here because we tend to think the sensory 4D space is *sub*symbolic. This is actually just a matter of terminology. For example, if "block A is on top of block B" then I may put a symbolic link labeled as "is_on_top_off" between the 2 nodes representing A and B. Is such a link symbolic or subsymbolic? Nodes and links such as "John" "loves" "Mary" are clearly symbolic because they correspond to natural-language words. But in a logical representation there can be many nodes/links that does NOT map directly to words. The point here is that a logical representation is *sufficient* to model a physical word facsimile. If you disagree this, can you give an example of something that cannot be represented in the logical way? 2. To help you better understand the issue here, notice that a fine-grained representation would eventually need to become coarse-grained -- information must be lost along the way, otherwise there would be memory shortage within hours of sensory perception. The logical representation is precisely such a coarse-grained one. Technically, as you go to the finer resolutions in the logical representation, the elements get a more "subsymbolic" flavor. 3. Can you name certain features of your representation that is different from a logical one? YKY ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
