On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> You're not getting where I'm coming from at all. I totally agree vision > is far prior to language. (We and I've covered your points many times). > That's not the point - wh. is that vision is nevertheless still vastly more > complex, than you have any idea. > whatever you say. That has nothing to do with whether it should be pursued this way or not. > > For one thing, vision depends on perceptualising/ conceptualising the world > - a schematic ontology of the world - image-schematic. It almost certainly > has to be done in a certain order, gradually built up. > how is that, even remotely, a reason to change the way I do my research? It doesn't even logically follow... > > No one in our culture has much idea of either what that ontology - a visual > ontology - consists of, or how it's built up. > Again, how is that an argument for changing my research? It's not. It does not follow again. > > And for the most basic thing, you still haven't registered that your > computer program has ZERO VISION. It's not actually looking at the world at > all. It's BLIND - if you take the time to analyse it. A pretty fundamental > error/ misconception. > Not an argument again. It has nothing to do with whether my approach will or will not provide the valuable knowledge and foundation required to solve the fundamental problems of general vision. > > Consequently, it also lacks a fundamental dimension of vision, wh. is > POINT-OF-VIEW - distance of the visual medium (eg the retina) and viewing > subject from the visual object. > > AGAIN. Not an argument against my approach. It simply doesn't logically follow anything. How is having a point of view in example problems prove that anything learned or developed isn't applicable to general vision? > Get thee to a roboticist, & make contact with the real world. > Get yourself to a psychologist so that they can show you how flawed your reasoning is. Fallacy upon fallacy. You are not in touch with reality. > > *From:* David Jones <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:42 PM > *To:* agi <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI > > Mike, > > THIS is the flawed reasoning that causes people to ignore vision as the > right way to create AGI. And I've finally come up with a great way to show > you how wrong this reasoning is. > > I'll give you an extremely obvious argument that proves that vision > requires much less knowledge to interpret than language does. Let's say that > you have never been to egypt, you have never seen some particular movie > before. But if you see the movie, an alien landscape, an alien world, a new > place or any such new visual experience, you can immediately interpret it in > terms of spacial, temporal, compositional and other relationships. > > Now, go to egypt and listen to them speak. Can you interpret it? Nope. > Why?! Because you don't have enough information. The language itself does > not contain any information to help you interpret it. We do not learn > language simply by listening. We learn based on evidence from how the > language is used and how it occurs in our daily lives. Without that > experience, you cannot interpret it. > > But with vision, you do not need extra knowledge to interpret a new > situation. You can recognize completely new objects without any training > except for simply observing them in their natural state. > > I wish people understood this better. > > Dave > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Mike Tintner > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Just off the cuff here - isn't the same true for vision? You can't learn >> vision from vision. Just as all NLP has no connection with the real world, >> and totally relies on the human programmer's knowledge of that world. >> >> Your visual program actually relies totally on your visual "vocabulary" - >> not its own. That is the inevitable penalty of processing unreal signals on >> a computer screen which are not in fact connected to the real world any more >> than the verbal/letter signals involved in NLP are. >> >> What you need to do - what anyone in your situation with anything like >> your asprations needs to do - is to hook up with a roboticist. Everyone here >> should be doing that. >> >> >> *From:* David Jones <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:27 PM >> *To:* agi <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >> >> You can't learn language from language without embedding way more >> knowledge than is reasonable. Language does not contain the information >> required for its interpretation. There is no *reason* to interpret the >> language into any of the infinite possible interpretaions. There is nothing >> to explain but it requires explanatory reasoning to determine the correct >> real world interpretation >> >> On Jun 29, 2010 10:58 AM, "Matt Mahoney" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> David Jones wrote: >> > Natural language requires more than the words on the page in the real >> world. Of... >> Any knowledge that can be demonstrated over a text-only channel (as in the >> Turing test) can also be learned over a text-only channel. >> >> >> >> > Cyc also is trying to store knowledge about a super complicated world in >> simplistic forms and al... >> Cyc failed because it lacks natural language. The vast knowledge store of >> the internet is unintelligible to Cyc. The average person can't use it >> because they don't speak Cycl and because they have neither the ability nor >> the patience to translate their implicit thoughts into augmented first order >> logic. Cyc's approach was understandable when they started in 1984 when they >> had neither the internet nor the vast computing power that is required to >> learn natural language from unlabeled examples like children do. >> >> >> >> > Vision and other sensory interpretaion, on the other hand, do not >> require more info because that... >> Without natural language, your system will fail too. You don't have enough >> computing power to learn language, much less the million times more >> computing power you need to learn to see. >> >> >> >> >> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >> >> ________________________________ >> From: David Jones <[email protected]> >> To: agi <[email protected]... >> *Sent:* Mon, June 28, 2010 9:28:57 PM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [agi] A Primary Distinction for an AGI >> >> >> Natural language requires more than the words on the page in the real >> world. Of course that didn't ... >> *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> >> >> *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> >> *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> >> > > *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> > *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> > ------------------------------------------- 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
