On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:45 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Let's crystallise the problem - all the unsolved problems of AGI - visual
> object recognition, conceptualisation, analogy, metaphor, creativity,
> language understanding and generation - are problems where you're dealing
> with freeform, irregular patchwork objects - objects which clearly do not
> fit any *patterns* - the raison d'etre of maths .
>
> To focus that , these objects do not have common parts in more or less
> precisely repeating structures - i.e. fit patterns.
>
> A cartoon and a photo of the same face may have no parts or structure in
> common.
> Ditto different versions of the Google logo. Zero common parts or structure
>
> Ditto "cloud" and "mushroom" - no common parts, or common structure.
>
> Yet the mind amazingly can see likenesses between all these things.
>
> Just about all the natural objects in the world , with some obvious
> exceptions, do not fit common patterns - they do not have the same parts in
> precisely the same places/structures. They may have common loose
> "organizations" of parts - e.g. mouths, eyes, noses, lips - but they are
> not precisely patterned.
>
> So you must explain how a mathematical approach, wh. is all about
> recognizing patterns, can apply to objects wh. do not fit patterns.
>
> You won't be able to - because if you could bring yourselves to look at the
> real world or any depictions of it other than geometric, (metacognitively
> speaking),you would see for yourself that these objects don't have precise
> patterns.
>
> It's obvious also that when the mind likens a cloud to a mushroom, it cannot
> be using any math. techniques.
.. but those things do have patterns.. A mushroom (A) is like a cloud
mushroom (B).
if ( (input_source_A == An_image) AND ( input_source_B == An_image ))
One pattern is that they both came from an image source, and I just used
maths + logic to prove it.
>
> But we have to understand how the mind does do that - because it's fairly
> clearly the same technique the mind also uses to conceptualise even more
> vastly different forms such as those of "chair," "tree", "dog," "cat."
>
> And that technique - like concepts themselves - is at the heart of AGI.
>
> And you can sit down and analyse the problem visually, physically and see
> also pretty obviously that if the mind can liken such physically different
> objects as cloud and mushroom, then it HAS to do that with something like a
> fluid schema. There's broadly no other way but to fluidly squash the objects
> to match each other (there could certainly be different techniques of
> achieving that - but the broad principles are fairly self evident). Cloud
> and mushroom certainly don't match formulaically, mathematically. Neither do
> those different versions of a tune. Or the different faces of Madonna.
>
> But what we've got here is people who don't in the final analysis give a
> damn about how to solve AGI - if it's a choice between doing maths and
> failing, and having some kind of "artistic" solution to AGI that actually
> works, most people here will happily fail forever. Mathematical AI has
> indeed consistently failed at AGI. You have to realise, mathematicians have
> a certain kind of madness. Artists don't go around saying God is an artist,
> or everything is art. Only mathematicians have that compulsion to reduce
> everything to maths, when the overwhelming majority of representations are
> clearly not mathematical - or claim that the obviously irregular abstract
> arts (think Pollock) are mathematical. You're in good company - Wolfram, a
> brilliant fellow, thinks his patterns constitute a new kind of science, when
> the vast majority of scientists can see they only constitute a new kind of
> pattern, and do not apply to the real world.
>
> Look again - the brain is primarily a patchwork adapted to a patchwork,
> very extensively unpatterned world - incl. the internet itself - adapted
> primarily not to neat, patterned networks, but to tangled, patchwork,
> non-mathematical webs. See fotos.
>
> The outrageous one here is not me.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Michael Swan" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:19 AM
> To: "agi" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [agi] How do we hear music
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sometimes outrageous comments are a catalyst for better ideas.
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:48 +0200, Jan Klauck wrote:
> >> Mike Tintner trolled
> >>
> >> > And maths will handle the examples given :
> >> >
> >> > same tunes - different scales, different instruments
> >> > same face - cartoon, photo
> >> > same logo - different parts [buildings/ fruits/ human figures]
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I forgot. The answer is somewhere down there:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalue,_eigenvector_and_eigenspace
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_identification
> >>
> > No-one has successfully integrated these concepts into a working AGI,
> > despite numerous attempts. Even though these concept feel general, when
> > implemented, only narrow or "affected by combinatorial explosion" have
> > succeeded.
> >
> >> > revealing them to be the same - how exactly?
> >>
> >> Why should anybody explain that mystery to you? You are not an
> >> accepted member of the Grand Lodge of AGI Masons or its affiliates.
> >>
> >> > Or you could take two arseholes - same kind of object, but radically
> >> > different configurations - maths will show them to belong to the same
> >> > category, how?
> >>
> >> How will you do it? By licking them?
> >
> > Personal attacks only weaken your arguments.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> 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/?&;
> >> Powered by Listbox: 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/?&;
> > Powered by Listbox: 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/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: 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
