You're somewhat confused here (and now that you're answering, one can see why & make progress).
"The use of" or "to use" a chair, involves a physical class of forms - bottoms
or other objects have to make physical contact with - sit on - the chair/fridge
etc. Everything we're talking about is physical and can only be conceived of
physically and, relative to our discussion, visually.
And you clearly don't see that you have still not identified any kind of
physical schema/ framework for either "chair" or "sitting" or anything else.
And that is what a visual AGI must do - use some kind of physical schema - in
order to recognize an object as a "chair" or the action of an object as
"sitting."
[Note I use "schema"/"framework" rather than "pattern" - the former are more
general terms, the latter much more specific (& mathematical). I suspect that
you may be using "pattern" here confusedly in the popular/nonmathematical
sense wh. is more akin to "schema." But you and all other AGI-ers actually deal
computationally in math. patterns, and it is that sense that I am addressing].
When you claim that there is a pattern to "chair[s]" you are making a
mathematical claim, - and it is completely indefensible. (Show me otherwise,
John). And that is perhaps the most central issue of AGI. So it is worth
consideration.
You also seem to be confused about my position - wh. BTW as I've pointed out is
backed by at least one significant AGI-er. I am NOT suggesting
conceptualisation/object recognition "cannot" be done - just not done by your
and others' 100%-record-of-failure mathematical methods. (I'm almost tempted to
say a "blind idiot could see that" ).**
I'm suggesting that the brain uses fluid schemas to recognize objects (and
concepts) - fluidly stretchable (and editable) schemas - when we say "by no
stretch of the imagination can that be recognized/classify as a "chair." " - we
are unconsciously indicating the underlying process of object recognition - one
of "stretching" image schemas to match incoming objects.
If you want an inspirational image of a fluid schema, think "strings" - as in
string theory - those oscillating strings which are supposed to be capable of
making any shape of particle or object. (I'm too ignorant to know how precisely
the brain's image schemas and nature's theoretical string schemas can be
aligned - comments welcome - but there seems to be a loose aptness and even
beauty in the comparison. It would be rather wonderful if mind and matter are
conceived/work on similar principles).
If you want both evidence and a concrete example of how fluid and stretchable
the brain's schemas can be - think of what the schema must be like for "one" or
"1". Well, something like a line obviously, But what's not so obvious -
although undeniable - is how stretchable and fluid that line must be in order
to recognize diverse objects - as diverse as "one" octopus, "one" cactus",
"one "mountain. See foto below. The brain can stretch a line outwards to
encompass any form of object in the universe - or conversely, squeeze/stretch
any object inwards to form a "1". All those objects in the foto can be
squeezed/stretched into that "one" on the top left.
Now is anyone here going to have the gall to tell me that process of object
recognition is mathematical?
But just as strings are - or could be - central to matter and physics; so are
fluid schemas central to intelligence - and especially to concepts.
**Correction - a blind idiot *could* see - by touch - that the diverse forms of
one octopus/flower etc could not be reduced to a line by any mathematical
process.
P.S. When I say that maths cannot deal with fluid schemas and object
recognition, one should perhaps amend that - it may be that no existing form of
maths. wh. deals entirely in "set forms" and patterns can, but that a creative
version of maths, dealing in "free forms" and patchworks, could.
P.P.S. "String" - the concept - itself involves an extremely fluid schema - is
a variation, in fact, of the schema of "one/1" - and must embrace many diverse
forms that strings may be shaped into.
From: David Jones
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:13 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
Mike,
Quoting a previous email:
QUOTE
In fact, the "chair" patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns.
The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses
probably are, and what most common effective uses are.
So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose
most likely use is for sitting based on experience.
END QUOTE
Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out
there camping, you can sit on it. I could say "sit on that fridge couch over
there". The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to call
it a couch.
But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it's a fridge. So, when the object
has a more "common effective use", as I stated above, it is usually referred to
by that use. If something is most likely used for sitting by a single person,
then it is a chair. If its most common best use is something else, like cooling
food, you would call it a fridge.
So, maybe the pattern would be, if it has some features like a chair, like
possible arm rests, a soft bottom, cushions, legs, a back rest, etc. and you
can't see it being used as anything else, then maybe it's a chair. If someone
sits on it, it certainly is a chair, if you find it by searching for chairs,
its likely a chair. etc.
You see, chairs are not simply recognized by their physical structure. There
are multiple ways you can recognize it and it is certainly important to know
that it doesn't seem useful for another task.
The idea that chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes,
sizes and structures is just wrong.
Dave
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote:
Examples of nonphysical patterns?
From: David Jones
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM
To: agi
Subject: Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2
You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it
must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be physical?
This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose unnecessary
restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no such
restrictions.
Dave
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote:
John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways
Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set of
fotos to Dave.
(And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there
are no such things as "non-physical patterns").
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
<<Emoticon1.gif>>
<<1043.jpg>>
