The way I define "algorithms" encompasses just about any intelligently designed system. So, call it what you want. I really wish you would stop avoiding the word. But, fine. I'll play your word game...
Define your "system" please. And justify why or how it handles uncertainty. You said "overlay a hand to see if it fits". How do you define "fits"? The truth is that it will never fit perfectly, so how do you define a good fit and a bad one? You will find that you end up with the same exact problems I am working on. You keep avoiding the need to define the system of "fluid schemas". You're avoiding it because it's not a solution to anything and you can't define it without realizing that your idea doesn't pan out. So, I dare you. Define your "fluid schemas" without revealing the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Dave On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > There isn't an algorithm. It's basically a matter of overlaying shapes to > see if they fit - much as you put one hand against another to see if they > fit - much as you can overlay a hand to see if it fits and is capable of > grasping an object - except considerably more fluid/ rougher. There has to > be some instruction generating the process, but it's not an algorithm. How > can you have an algorithm for recognizing amoebas - or rocks or a drop of > water? They are not patterned entities - or by extension reducible to > algorithms. You don't need to think too much about internal visual processes > - you can just look,at the external objects-to-be-classified , the objects > that make up this world, and see this. Just as you can look at a set of > diverse "patterns" and see that they too are not reducible to any single > formula/pattern/algorithm. We're talking about the fundamental structure of > the universe and its contents. If this is right and "God is an artist" > before he is a mathematician, then it won't do any good screaming about it, > you're going to have to invent a way to do art, so to speak, on computers . > Or you can pretend that dealing with mathematical squares will somehow help > here - but it hasn't and won't. > > Do you think that a creative process like creating > > http://www.apocalyptic-theories.com/gallery/lastjudge/bosch.jpg > > started with an algorithm? There are other ways of solving problems than > algorithms - the person who created each algorithm in the first place > certainly didn't have one. > > *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 4:20 PM > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI > > Mike, > > Please outline your algorithm for fluid schemas though. It will be clear > when you do that you are faced with the exact same uncertainty problems I am > dealing with and trying to solve. The problems are completely equivalent. > Yours is just a specific approach that is not sufficiently defined. > > You have to define how you deal with uncertainty when using fluid schemas > or even how to approach the task of figuring it out. Until then, its not a > solution to anything. > > Dave > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > >> If fluid schemas - speaking broadly - are what is needed, (and I'm >> pretty sure they are), it's n.g. trying for something else. You can't >> substitute a "square" approach for a "fluid amoeba outline" approach. (And >> you will certainly need exactly such an approach to recognize amoeba's). >> >> If it requires a new kind of machine, or a radically new kind of >> instruction set for computers, then that's what it requires - Stan Franklin, >> BTW, is one person who does recognize, and is trying to deal with this >> problem - might be worth checking up on him. >> >> This is partly BTW why my instinct is that it may be better to start with >> tasks for robot hands*, because it should be possible to get them to apply >> a relatively flexible and fluid grip/handshape and grope for and experiment >> with differently shaped objects And if you accept the broad philosophy I've >> been outlining, then it does make sense that evolution should have started >> with touch as a more primary sense, well before it got to vision. >> >> *Or perhaps it may prove better to start with robot snakes/bodies or >> somesuch. >> >> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 3:22 PM >> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Mike Tintner >> <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: >> >>> Couple of quick comments (I'm still thinking about all this - but I'm >>> confident everything AGI links up here). >>> >>> A fluid schema is arguably by its v. nature a method - a trial and error, >>> arguably universal method. It links vision to the hand or any effector. >>> Handling objects also is based on fluid schemas - you put out a fluid >>> adjustably-shaped hand to grasp things. And even if you don't have hands, >>> like a worm, and must grasp things with your body, and must "grasp" the >>> ground under which you move, then too you must use fluid body schemas/maps. >>> >>> All concepts - the basis of language and before language, all >>> intelligence - are also almost certainly fluid schemas (and not as you >>> suggested, patterns). >>> >> >> fluid schemas is not an actual algorithm. It is not clear how to go about >> implementing such a design. Even so, when you get into the details of >> actually implementing it, you will find yourself faced with the exact same >> problems I'm trying to solve. So, lets say you take the first frame and >> generate an initial "fluid schema". What if an object disappears? What if >> the object changes? What if the object moves a little or a lot? What if a >> large number of changes occur at once, like one new thing suddenly blocking >> a bunch of similar stuff that is behind it? How far does your "fluid schema" >> have to be distorted for the algorithm to realize that it needs a new schema >> and can't use the same old one? You can't just say that all objects are >> always present and just distort the schema. What if two similar objects >> appear or both move and one disappears? How does your schema handle this? >> Regardless of whether you talk about hypotheses or schemas, it is the SAME >> problem. You can't avoid the fact that the whole thing is underdetermined >> and you need a way to score and compare hypotheses. >> >> If you disagree, please define your schema algorithm a bit more >> specifically. Then we would be able to analyze its pros and cons better. >> >> >>> >>> All creative problemsolving begins from concepts of what you want to do >>> (and not formulae or algorithms as in rational problemsolving). Any >>> suggestion to the contrary will not, I suggest, bear the slightest serious >>> examination. >>> >> >> Sure. I would point out though that children do stuff just to learn in >> the beginning. A good example is our desire to play. Playing is a strategy >> by which children learn new things even though they don't have a need for >> those things yet. It motivates us to learn for the future and not for any >> pressing present needs. >> >> No matter how you look at it, you will need "algorithms" for general >> intelligence. To say otherwise makes zero sense. No algorithms, no design. >> No matter what design you come up with, I call that an algorithm. Algorithms >> don't have to be "formulaic" or narrow. Keep an open mind about the world >> "algorithm", unless you can suggest a better term to describe general AI >> algorithms. >> >> >>> **Fluid schemas/concepts/fluid outlines are attempts-to-grasp-things - >>> "gropings".** >>> >>> Point 2 : I'd relook at your assumptions in all your musings - my >>> impression is they all assume, unwittingly, an *adult* POV - the view of >>> s.o. who already knows how to see - as distinct from an infant who is just >>> learning to see and "get to grips with" an extremely blurred world, (even >>> more blurred and confusing, I wouldn't be surprised, than that Prakash >>> video). You're unwittingly employing top down, fully-formed-intelligence >>> assumptions even while overtly trying to produce a learning system - you're >>> looking for what an adult wants to know, rather than what an infant >>> starting-from-almost-no-knowledge-of-the-world wants to know. >>> >>> If you accept the point in any way, major philosophical rethinking is >>> required. >>> >> >> this point doesn't really define at all how the approach should be changed >> or what approach to take. So, it doesn't change the way I approach the >> problem. You would really have to be more specific. For example, you could >> say that the infant doesn't even know how to group pixels, so it has to >> automatically learn that. I would have to disagree with this approach >> because I can't think of any reasonable algorithms that could reasonably >> explore possibilities. It doesn't seem better to me to describe the problem >> even more generally to the point where you are learning how to learn. This >> is what Abram was suggesting. But, as I said to him, you need a way to >> suggest and search for possible learning methods and then compare them. >> There doesn't seem to be a way to do this effectively. And so, you shouldn't >> over generalize in this way. As I said in the initial email(this week), >> there is no such thing as perfectly general and a silver bullet for solving >> any problem. So, I believe that even infants are born expecting what the >> world will be like. They aren't able to learn about any world. They are >> optimized to configure their brains for this world. >> >> >>> >>> *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 1:56 PM >>> *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: Huge Progress on the Core of AGI >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Mike Tintner >>> <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>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> >>> <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> > <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
