On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:31 AM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A method for comparing hypotheses in explanatory-based reasoning:*Here is > a simplified version of how we solve case study 1: > *The important hypotheses to consider are: > 1) the square from frame 1 of the video that has a very close position to > the square from frame 2 should be matched (we hypothesize that they are the > same square and that any difference in position is motion). So, what > happens is that in each two frames of the video, we only match one square. > The other square goes unmatched. > 2) We do the same thing as in hypothesis #1, but this time we also match > the remaining squares and hypothesize motion as follows: the first square > jumps over the second square from left to right. We hypothesize that this > happens over and over in each frame of the video. Square 2 stops and square > 1 jumps over it.... over and over again. > 3) We hypothesize that both squares move to the right in unison. This is > the correct hypothesis. > > So, why should we prefer the correct hypothesis, #3 over the other two? > > Well, first of all, #3 is correct because it has the most explanatory power > of the three and is the simplest of the three. Simpler is better because, > with the given evidence and information, there is no reason to desire a more > complicated hypothesis such as #2. > > So, the answer to the question is because explanation #3 expects the most > observations, such as: > 1) the consistent relative positions of the squares in each frame are > expected. > 2) It also expects their new positions in each from based on velocity > calculations. > 3) It expects both squares to occur in each frame. > > Explanation 1 ignores 1 square from each frame of the video, because it > can't match it. Hypothesis #1 doesn't have a reason for why the a new square > appears in each frame and why one disappears. It doesn't expect these > observations. In fact, explanation 1 doesn't expect anything that happens > because something new happens in each frame, which doesn't give it a chance > to confirm its hypotheses in subsequent frames. > > The power of this method is immediately clear. It is general and it solves > the problem very cleanly. > Dave > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > Nonsense. This illustrates one of the things wrong with the dreary instantiations of the prevailing mind set of a group. It is only a matter of time until you discover (through experiment) how absurd it is to celebrate the triumph of an overly simplistic solution to a problem that is, by its very potential, full of possibilities. For one example, even if your program portrayed the 'objects' as moving in 'unison' I doubt if the program calculated or represented those objects in unison. I also doubt that their positioning was literally based on moving 'right' since their movement were presumably calculated with incremental mathematics that were associated with screen positions. And, looking for a technicality that represents the failure of the over reliance of the efficacy of a simplistic over generalization, I only have to point out that they did not only move to the right, so your description was either wrong or only partially representative of the apparent movement. As long as the hypotheses are kept simple enough to eliminate the less useful hypotheses, and the underlying causes for apparent relations are kept irrelevant, over simplification is a reasonable (and valuable) method. But if you are seriously interested in scalability, then this kind of conclusion is just dull. I have often made the criticism that the theories put forward in these groups are overly simplistic. Although I understand that this was just a simple example, here is the key to determining whether a method is overly simplistic (or as in AIXI) based on an overly simplistic definition of insight. Would this method work in discovering the possibilities of a potentially more complex IO data environment like those we would expect to find using AGI? Jim Bromer. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
