Mike, see below.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > The first thing is to acknowledge that programs *don't* handle concepts - > if you think they do, you must give examples. > > The reasons they can't, as presently conceived, is > > a) concepts encase a more or less *infinite diversity of forms* (even > if only applying at first to a "species" of object) - *chair* for example > as I've demonstrated embraces a vast open-ended diversity of radically > different chair forms; higher order concepts like "furniture" embrace ... > well, it's hard to think even of the parameters, let alone the diversity of > forms, here. > invoking infinity is insufficient argument to say that a program can't recognize an infinite number of forms. In fact, I can prove it. Lets say that all numbers are made of digits 0,1,2,3...9. If you can recognize just 9 digits, you can read infinitely large numbers. Another example, you can create an infinite number of very diverse shapes and forms out of clay. But, I can represent every last one of them using simple mesh models. The mesh models are made of a very small number of concepts: lines, points, distance constraints, etc. So, an infinite number of diverse "concepts" or "forms" can be modeled using a very small number of concepts. In conclusion, you have no proof at all that programs can't handle these things. You just THINK they can't. But, I for one, know you're dead wrong. > > b) concepts are *polydomain*- not just multi- but open-endedly extensible > in their domains; "chair" for example, can also refer to a person, skin in > French, two humans forming a chair to carry s.o., a prize, etc. > A chair is defined by anything you can sit on. Anything you can sit on is defined by a certain type of form that you can actually learn inductively. It is not impossible to teach a computer to recognize things that could be sat on or even things that seem like they have the form of something that might be sat on. To say that a computer can never learn this is impossible for you to claim. You see, very diverse "concepts" can be represented by a small number of other concepts such as time, space, 3D form, etc. You claim is completely baseless. > > Basically concepts have a freeform realm or sphere of reference, and you > can't have a setform, preprogrammed approach to defining that realm. > you can if it covers base concepts which can represent larger concepts. > > There's no reason however why you can't mechanically and computationally > begin to instantiate the kind of freeform approach I'm proposing. The most > important obstacle is the setform mindset of AGI-ers - epitomised by Dave > looking at squares, moving along set lines - setform objects in setform > motion - when it would be more appropriate to look at something like > snakes.- freeform objects in freeform motion. > squares can move in an infinite number of ways. It is an experiment.... An exercise... to learn how AGI deals with uncertainty, even if the uncertainty is very limited. Clearly you have no imagination to understand why doing such experiments might be useful. You think moving squares is simple just because they are squares. But, you fail to realize that uncertainty can be generated out of even very simple systems. And so far you have never stated how you would deal with such uncertainty. ------------------------------------------- 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
