You've missed the point. What a human does in looking at a rorschach is to "see" - i.e. compare it with - a recognizable object or creature - a bat, for instance, or an ant, or a gargoyle.
I didn't miss the point. The standard visual operators are doing exactly the same thing.
So what you must tell me is how your or any geometrical system of analysis is going to be able to take a rorschach and come up similarly with a recognizable object or creature. Bear in mind, your system will be given no initial clues as to what objects or creatures are suitable as potential comparisons. It can by all means have a large set of visual images in memory, as we do. But you must tell me how your system will connect the rorschach with any of those images, such as a bat, - by *geometrical* means.
Mike, do you know what vector graphics are? Do you understand how comparing vector graphics can lead to exactly such an identification? Why are you asking this question as if this something new or unique?
Of course, a geometrical system can be used to *analyse* an individual rorschach into some set of geometric forms - but only "by hand", individually, on a one-off basis - and imperfectly. There is no geometrical *formula* for analysing rorschachs, because they can take an unlimited and non-formulaic variety of shapes, just as there is no geometrical formula for analysing the diverse shapes of living creatures, like bats, ants and human beings. So there is, by extension, no geometrical, or indeed any other formulaic means to *compare* a rorschach with any object or creature.
There are all sorts of ad hoc algorithms that can replace what you say must be done "by hand". The second half of your paragraph is just blatantly incorrect.
Nor is there any geometrical means to compare *any* irregular objects - a slug and, say, a human being walking along, a purse, say, and a vagina, a rock and a chair, a moustache and a walrus.
Wrong.
If you think there is, then you obviously have solved some of the most important, unsolved problems of AGI, such as analogy, metaphor and creativity.
How so? Show me *exactly* how they correlate and how if I have solved the one, the other is trivial.
You've also turned geometers into designers and artists
How so? Since when does decomposition equal good composition? Personally, I am able to analyze art and say what is good and bad. I am not, however, a particularly good artist. Your argument is just plain wrong. AGAIN.
So I await your geometric solution to this problem - (a mere statement of principle will do) - with great interest. Well, actually no. Your answer is broadly predictable - you 1) won't have any idea here 2) will have nothing to say to the point and 3) be, as usual, all bark and no bite - all insults and no ideas.
Nice ad hominem. Asshole.
------------------------------------------- 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
