Mike,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> Isn't the first problem simply to differentiate the objects in a scene?
>
Well, that is part of the movement problem. If you say something moved, you
are also saying that the objects in the two or more video frames are the
same instance.
> (Maybe the most important movement to begin with is not the movement of
> the object, but of the viewer changing their POV if only slightly - wh.
> won't be a factor if you're "looking" at a screen)
>
Maybe, but this problem becomes kind of trivial in a 2D environment,
assuming you don't allow rotation of the POV. Moving the POV would simply
translate all the objects linearly. If you make it a 3D environment, it
becomes significantly more complicated. I could work on 3D, which I will,
but I'm not sure I should start there. I probably should consider it though
and see what complications it adds to the problem and how they might be
solved.
> And that I presume comes down to being able to put a crude, highly
> tentative, and fluid outline round them (something that won't be neces. if
> you're dealing with squares?) . Without knowing v. little if anything about
> what kind of objects they are. As an infant most likely does. {See infants'
> drawings and how they evolve v. gradually from a v. crude outline blob that
> at first can represent anything - that I'm suggesting is a "replay" of how
> visual perception developed).
>
> The fluid outline or image schema is arguably the basis of all intelligence
> - just about everything AGI is based on it. You need an outline for
> instance not just of objects, but of where you're going, and what you're
> going to try and do - if you want to survive in the real world. Schemas
> connect everything AGI.
>
> And it's not a matter of choice - first you have to have an outline/sense
> of the whole - whatever it is - before you can start filling in the parts.
>
Well, this is the question. The solution is underdetermined, which means
that a right solution is not possible to know with complete certainty. So,
you may take the approach of using contours to match objects, but that is
certainly not the only way to approach the problem. Yes, you have to use
local features in the image to group pixels together in some way. I agree
with you there.
Is using contours the right way? Maybe, but not by itself. You have to
define the problem a little better than just saying that we need to
construct an outline. The real problem/question is this: "How do you
determine the uncertainty of a hypothesis, lower it and also determine how
good a hypothesis is, especially in comparison to other hypotheses?"
So, in this case, we are trying to use an outline comparison to determine
the best match hypotheses between objects. But, that doesn't define how you
score alternative hypotheses. That also is certainly not the only way to do
it. You could use the details within the outline too. In fact, in some
situations, this would be required to disambiguate between the possible
hypotheses.
> P.S. It would be mindblowingly foolish BTW to think you can do better
> than the way an infant learns to see - that's an awfully big visual section
> of the brain there, and it works.
>
I'm not trying to "do better" than the human brain. I am trying to solve the
same problems that the brain solves in a different way, sometimes better
than the brain, sometimes worse, sometimes equivalently. What would be
foolish is to assume the only way to duplicate general intelligence is to
copy the human brain. By taking this approach, you are forced to reverse
engineer and understand something that is extremely difficult to reverse
engineer. In addition, a solution that using the brain's design may not be
economically feasible. So, approaching the problem by copying the human
brain has additional risks. You may end up figuring out how the brain works
and not be able to use it. In addition might not end up with a good
understanding of what other solutions might be possible.
Dave
-------------------------------------------
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
