Mike Tintner wrote:
Eh? Move your hand across the desk. You see that as a series of
snapshots? Move a noisy object across. You don't see a continuous
picture with a continuous soundtrack?
Let me give you an example of how impressive I think the brain's powers
here are. I've been thinking about metaphor and the superimposition/
transformation of two images involved. "The clouds cried" - that sort of
thing. Then another one came up: "bicycle kick." Now technically, I
think that's awesome - because to arrive at it, the brain has to
superimpose two *movie* clips.
Look at the football kick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NCWQr47bK0
and then look at the action of cycling. (In fact that superimposition of
clouds and eyes crying is also of movie clips - and so are a vast amount
of metaphors - but I hadn't really noticed it).
Try and tell me how current visual systems might make that connection.
And I would assert - and am increasingly confident - that the grammar of
language - how we put words together in whatever form - is based on
cutting together internal *movies* in our head - not still images,but
movies.
They don't teach moviemaking in AI courses do they?
Mike,
There is a pattern in our attacks, and within that pattern there is a
fallacy that I don't think you are aware of.
What you are doing is saying that to understand visual (or other)
images, or more generally to understand sequences like sequences of
words in a sentence, the mind MUST replay these on some internal viewing
screen.
You go one further than this: you are arguing that because AI theorists
do not put "continuous replay" mechanisms inside their models, therefore
those theorists are completely failing to get to grips with the issue of
handling images, or handling moving sequences or strings of sounds.
In other words, from your point of view NO INTERNAL DISPLAY SCREEN means
that the AI model contains no way to understand these things. Hence
your frequent complaint that AI people just don't have a clue how to
deal with imagery, or that they don't understand that the mind "works
directly in terms of imagery, not in terms of symbols".
But (with respect) this is just nonsense, and it has known to be
nonsense for a long time. If your AI has an internal display screen on
which images are displayed or replayed, you have achieved nothing,
unless there is a smaller AI watching the screen - so this is a version
of the homunculus fallacy.
Unless you are prepared to say WHY the screen is needed at all, and what
happens after the image is displayed on that internal screen, you are
just making nonsensical protests about a non-problem.
The truth is that images are broken down and understood in the act of
being broken down.
Understanding is not a replay of sensory input!
Richard Loosemore
P.S. I made movies when I was a student at UCL.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
