Re: [agi] Defining understanding (was Re: Newcomb's Paradox)
- Original Message From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't claim that compression is simple. It is not. Text compression is AI-complete. The general problem is not even computable. ...I claim that compression can be used to measure intelligence. I explain in more detail at http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- It will take me a while to read your paper. However, I want to say that I am skeptical that you would be able to use compression to even measure intelligence. I do think it might be worthwhile to come up with basic elements of intelligence, and these could include correlations of productive output from different algorithms or something like that. But, from there you have to continue to build the system. It would be necessary to show how those elements can be combined to produce higher (or better) intelligence, and the Shannon/Hutter enthusiasts (along with everyone else) simply have not done this. (I think the contemporary advancements in AI are probably due to faster memory access and parallelism as much as any achievement in AI software.) But this means that you are advancing a purely speculative theory without any evidence to support it. Right now I am working on my own religious journey (but mine is seriously religious interestingly enough) writing a polynomial time SAT program. Now let's say that this SAT theory actually worked and was followed by a theory that showed that it could be used both to advance AI and to compress data. You might have a -I told you so- moment. But I might then have a -so what- moment. (I say that in a competitive but cordial way.) Of course intelligence will involve some kind of compression method! But so what? It will also involve some kind of speculative method. Does that mean that we can use speculation to 'measure' intelligence? Well, sure. Someone might be able to devise a psychometric measure of speculative potential or something like that. But this does not translate into an objective measure of intelligence until it is compared with thousands of subjects and integrated into a system that indicates that this particular measure of speculative potential can be correlated with other measures of intelligence and achievement. Sometimes a compression algorithm is just a compression algorithm. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] Amazon Recommends
Unsolicited, specially for me personally, today: Artificial General Intelligence (Cognitive Technologies) by Ben Goertzel RRP: £46.00 Price: £30.36 You Save: £15.64 (34%) Rate this item: I own it This is the first book on current research on artificial general intelligence (AGI), work explicitly focused on engineering general intelligence ? autonomous, self-reflective, self-improving, commonsensical intelligence.Each... Read more --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Defining understanding (was Re: Newcomb's Paradox)
--- Jim Bromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't claim that compression is simple. It is not. Text compression is AI-complete. The general problem is not even computable. ...I claim that compression can be used to measure intelligence. I explain in more detail at http://cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/rationale.html -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- It will take me a while to read your paper. However, I want to say that I am skeptical that you would be able to use compression to even measure intelligence. I do think it might be worthwhile to come up with basic elements of intelligence, and these could include correlations of productive output from different algorithms or something like that. But, from there you have to continue to build the system. It would be necessary to show how those elements can be combined to produce higher (or better) intelligence, and the Shannon/Hutter enthusiasts (along with everyone else) simply have not done this. (I think the contemporary advancements in AI are probably due to faster memory access and parallelism as much as any achievement in AI software.) But this means that you are advancing a purely speculative theory without any evidence to support it. The evidence is described in my paper which you haven't read yet. For building AGI, my proposal is http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html Unfortunately, I estimate the cost to be US $1 quadrillion over the next 30 years. But I believe it is coming, because AGI is worth that much. If I use compression anywhere, it will be to evaluate candidate language models for peers in a market that right now does not yet exist. Right now I am working on my own religious journey (but mine is seriously religious interestingly enough) writing a polynomial time SAT program. It is worth $1 million if you succeed, but I wouldn't waste my time on it. http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/ -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
[agi] AGI and Wiki, was Understanding a sick puppy
Mike, Stan, et al, I have recently had some interesting off-line discussions that may be pulling things together, so I thought that I would run the emerging concept up the flagpole here and get any opinions. I have previously posted here the horrific problems trying to deal with the Wiki people, as they apparently perceive value in impeding a good AI/AGI interface to Wikipedia. Apparently, even their own internal people can't get help here, as it might lead to loosing control over the search business. However... The Wikipedia software is open source, and some companies even maintain their own domain-specific wikis as knowledge base. Further, the AI/AGI interface problem is certainly not their only problem. The 2nd biggest problem is their implicit insistence on a single model/paradigm behind every article, which limits Wiki to being of value only for grade-school support. Note in passing the value of faulty models. Often the most accurate model suggests no means of correction, whereas a less accurate model suggests corrections that quite often (but sometimes don't) work (see puppy update below). Limiting articles to single models destroys MOST of the potential value of Wikipedia, as does blocking an AI/AGI interface. Proposal: Start a new AI/AGI Wikipedia, starting with the present open-source Wikipedia software with minor mods to collect additional information from authors and build a database on an associated FTP site for anyone to download. This should soon take over the Wiki business from the present Wikipedia folks. A well placed patent application would impede their following suit, thereby seizing this entire marketplace. Unfortunately, this is too big of a project to be funded with my lunch money or built and maintained with my limited spare time. However, with an investor to cover miscellaneous expenses, a server to hold the site, and some co-conspirators to help make it go; and this could quite easily take over much/most of the Internet in a way that would be MUCH bigger than ever envisioned by Wikipedia. *Does anyone else here share my dream of a worldwide AI with all of the knowledge of the human race to support it - built with EXISTING Wikipedia and Dr. Eliza software and a little glue to hold it all together?* Note that unlike the present Internet, that Dr. Eliza is pretty much language-independent. You can even put in a problem statement in one language, and get the unanswered questions and analysis out in another language. The principles underlying this are similar to financial systems that keep the numbers in a database, and use different language versions of their program to access it, only in Dr. Eliza, nearly every record has a field to indicate language so that no software changes are needed to support different languages, though trivial enhancements ARE needed to support new languages with previously unsupported features, e.g. the differing use of periods and commas in numbers depending on which side of the pond that you reside on. With this, the WHOLE world would be automatically included, rather than just the English language part of it (with trivial separate participation by other languages) as is presently the case. No longer would the Internet be divided up according to languages. Puppy Update: The puppy is doing MUCH better, and is now starting to explore. Three new theories as to its problems have emerged: 1. Pus found on its fur pointed the way to an abscess in its armpit that had evaded previous inspection. The abscess seems to be too small to be life-threatening, but who knows? 2. It has an umbilical hernia that might be strangling some intestines. 3. Like some people, it would apparently rather die than eat puppy food, though it doesn't seem to be picky about eating minced leftovers. However, earlier theories, though probably incorrect, DID guide the way to treatment that, though not perfect (it would have been nice to lance the abscess), was sufficiently successful to save its life. This serves to highlight the value of incorrect theories, that they often provide the right answers in a timely manner, even when for the wrong reasons. Steve Richfield --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Mike, On 5/15/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve/MT: My off-the-cuff thought here is that a central database, organised on some open source basis getting medical professionals continually to contribute and update, which would enable people to immediately get a run-down of the major possible causes (and indeed minor possible ones - anything that has been proposed) - for any given illness or set of symptoms, would be a great thing - assuming somesuch doesn't already exist. That would leave the user to make his choices. Those words could have come from my own fingers ~3 years ago. Since then I have come to realize just how profoundly insecure these guys really are. Several attempts to sell this into various settings have run into insurmountable people-problems, though there has been no significant technical problems. Steve, I can loosely appreciate the problems of persuasion, but, given your enthusiasm for this field, I would urge you to keep trying - there has to be a way round them. I agree. Please see my new posting on AGI and Wiki. Surely, the angle has to be something like a super-medical-wiki-but-with-professional-standards Incompetents have successively redefined professional standards to be completely dysfunctional. Doing things the same old way, most of which has never been studied, IS professional. However, acting on new theories with supporting evidence but lacking extensive double-blind studies can lose your medical license, home, and comfortable life. See Stephen Barret's http://www.quackwatch.com. I once attended a lecture on some new research, when the lecturer announced that he was FINALLY featured on Quackwatch. He received a round of applause from the audience! If I were higher profile, I might well achieve the same fame. Note that many theories are IMPOSSIBLE to study using double-blind methods that were designed only to study drugs. I see the (former) field of phrenology, diagnosing illnesses based on the bumps on people's heads, as being a good example of the same phenomenon. You could get professional credentials in this field once you could prove that you knew which bumps were supposedly associated with which illnesses. Of course, there ARE a number of common conditions (like magnesium deficiency, the most common deficiency there is) that DO cause differences in bumps and skull shape. has to be of universal use to MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS as well as the layperson, (and the layman will still need professional advice on the info. provided). The immediate marketing angle that occurs to me is: this will keep you, the medico, up-to-date This is IMPOSSIBLE because there just aren't enough hours in a day to read everything that is pertinent. and ensure you don't give out-of-date unprofessional advice As explained above, this is an oxymoron, because professional, as defined by people who are themselves out-of-date, is an out-of-date definition. (and will give your advice an imprimatur in that you will always be able to say you checked the most reliable source). If you wait for proof, then you are practicing 20-30 years behind the times, which means that you will be unnecessarily losing a LOT of patients. Of course, going with the latest information will also lose some patients, but not nearly as many. THERE IS NO SAFE ANSWER. [No doubt there may be many other angles]. My guess is an awful lot of medicos WON'T be up-to-date. Bingo! For example, last year there was a discovery re CFS how it's down to a stomach virus - which looks right, and fits the symptoms. I have looked at this area. There are almost as many different theories behind CFS as there are books about CFS, and there are a LOT of books. I believe that a large number of these theories are CORRECT for some sub-population of CFS sufferers. The point here is that almost any metabolic malfunction is going to, by the nature of metabolism, reduce the available energy output, which will cause CFS-like symptoms. We are complex mechanisms and there is a LOT that can go wrong. Further, these malfunctions usually cause cascading failures as alternate systems try to do the job, so that (for example) substantially all CFS sufferers have adrenal fatigue, though that seems to rarely be a primary failure (Addison's disease). Sure, a stomach virus could and probably does cause some CFS, but avoid falling into the diagnosis trap of expecting most of the sufferers of any illness, including CFS, to all have the same malfunction. I'll bet an awful lot of medicos aren't up-to-date on that yet but the sufferers still looking for a reasonable treatment, will sure as heck appreciate the info. And if you could work out a super-pro-wiki framework, it would probably be applicable to many fields. Wouldn't it be better to provide a super-wiki that could be selected to ONLY display the professional content if that was what was wanted? How about a cookie on everyone's
Re: [agi] AGI and Wiki, was Understanding a sick puppy
Steve Richfield said: Does anyone else here share my dream of a worldwide AI with all of the knowledge of the human race to support it - built with EXISTING Wikipediaand Dr. Eliza software and a little glue to hold it all together? Hi Steve, I share part of your dream, in that I am strongly attracted to Wikipedia as great corpus of commonsense knowledge that should be incorporated into my AGI project, Texai.I've looked at the Freebase Wikipedia Extraction: The Freebase Wikipedia Extraction (WEX) is a processed dump of the English language Wikipedia. The wiki markup for each article is transformed into machine-readable XML, and common relational features such as templates, infoboxes, categories, article sections, and redirects are extracted in tabular form. Freebase WEX is provided as a set of database tables in TSV format for PostgreSQL, along with tables providing mappings between Wikipedia articles and Freebase topics, and corresponding Freebase Types. My plan: 1. Rather than deal with Wikimedia, collaborating on a AGI-style interface , I would simply process (i.e. parse and completely understand) their content. 2. One could then teach Texai how to edit a Wikipedia article to close the loop.FYI. Another great corpus of knowledge is an online patent database. In the US, patents include a section that describes the background of the invention. On the road to generally applicable machine vision, I can envision a facility that can read various types of patent diagrams. Cheers, -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 - Original Message From: Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:31:58 AM Subject: [agi] AGI and Wiki, was Understanding a sick puppy Mike, Stan, et al, I have recently had some interesting off-line discussions that may be pulling things together, so I thought that I would run the emerging concept up the flagpole here and get any opinions. I have previously posted here the horrific problems trying to deal with the Wiki people, as they apparently perceive value in impeding a good AI/AGI interface to Wikipedia. Apparently, even their own internal people can't get help here, as it might lead to loosing control over the search business. However... The Wikipedia software is open source, and some companies even maintain their own domain-specific wikis as knowledge base. Further, the AI/AGI interface problem is certainly not their only problem. The 2nd biggest problem is their implicit insistence on a single model/paradigm behind every article, which limits Wiki to being of value only for grade-school support. Note in passing the value of faulty models. Often the most accurate model suggests no means of correction, whereas a less accurate model suggests corrections that quite often (but sometimes don't) work (see puppy update below). Limiting articles to single models destroys MOST of the potential value of Wikipedia, as does blocking an AI/AGI interface. Proposal: Start a new AI/AGI Wikipedia, starting with the present open-source Wikipedia software with minor mods to collect additional information from authors and build a database on an associated FTP site for anyone to download. This should soon take over the Wiki business from the present Wikipedia folks. A well placed patent application would impede their following suit, thereby seizing this entire marketplace. Unfortunately, this is too big of a project to be funded with my lunch money or built and maintained with my limited spare time. However, with an investor to cover miscellaneous expenses, a server to hold the site, and some co-conspirators to help make it go; and this could quite easily take over much/most of the Internet in a way that would be MUCH bigger than ever envisioned by Wikipedia. Does anyone else here share my dream of a worldwide AI with all of the knowledge of the human race to support it - built with EXISTING Wikipedia and Dr. Eliza software and a little glue to hold it all together? Note that unlike the present Internet, that Dr. Eliza is pretty much language-independent. You can even put in a problem statement in one language, and get the unanswered questions and analysis out in another language. The principles underlying this are similar to financial systems that keep the numbers in a database, and use different language versions of their program to access it, only in Dr. Eliza, nearly every record has a field to indicate language so that no software changes are needed to support different languages, though trivial enhancements ARE needed to support new languages with previously unsupported features, e.g. the differing use of periods and commas in numbers depending on which side of the pond that you reside on. With this, the WHOLE world would be
[agi] Formal Language Expressions
If your AGI project supports a formal language (FL) communication, I would be interested to see how would be the following sentence expressed in that FL: John said that if he knew yesterday what he knows today, he wouldn't do what he did back then. Thanks, Jiri Jelinek PS: Sorry if similar stuff was recently discussed. I didn't follow recent exchanges. --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] AGI and Wiki, was Understanding a sick puppy
--- Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Does anyone else here share my dream of a worldwide AI with all of the knowledge of the human race to support it Yes - built with EXISTING Wikipedia No. Wikipedia has the right idea that it reflects a consensus of knowledge with instant peer review, which is usually more accurate than individual knowledge. However, it is centralized, so it depends on donations of money to keep running on a single server, rather than self sustaining market driven contributions of computing resources in a distributed environment. and Dr. Eliza software and a little glue to hold it all together?* The glue, the distributed search index or message routing service, will be the major component of distributed AGI. Most of the intelligence will go into directing messages to the right experts based on content, and filtering spam. Dr. Eliza reflects your personal agenda. It will be judged as a peer in a competitive marketplace where information has negative value on average. If you go against the majority, you will be blocked. To get your message out, you will either need to back up your claims with research, or back off your claims to a personal case history, or buy advertising from peers with high reputations. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Understanding a sick puppy
Steve, Briefly, my thought re a super-medi-wiki is that it only presents theories/contenders rather than definitive answers - and there must be some ratings/voting system.Yes that favours conservative thinking which may become out-of-date. But users will still look for outsider ideas, and it should present the latest kooky ideas as long as they have some backing. I can't believe there isn't a way round any marketing difficulty. Maybe you should write/talk to Kaiser et al and ask what they would like from such a system. Every medico, presumably, has to research/Google info now and therefore will have all kinds of explicit desires for improvements and some ideal database.But aren't governments or UNO funding any projects here? --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Defining understanding (was Re: Newcomb's Paradox)
I had said: But this means that you are advancing a purely speculative theory without any evidence to support it. Matt said: The evidence is described in my paper which you haven't read yet. I did glance at the paper and I don't think I will be able to understand your evidence. Can you give me some clues using plain language. - Matt said: For building AGI, my proposal is http://www.mattmahoney.net/agi.html Unfortunately, I estimate the cost to be US $1 quadrillion over the next 30 years. But I believe it is coming, because AGI is worth that much. If I use compression anywhere, it will be to evaluate candidate language models for peers in a market that right now does not yet exist. - Can you explain what you mean by the statement that you would use compression to evaluate candidate language models? I had said: Right now I am working on my own religious journey (but mine is seriously religious interestingly enough) writing a polynomial time SAT program. Matt said: It is worth $1 million if you succeed, but I wouldn't waste my time on it. http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/ - I had given up on it as a waste of time, but I decided to look more carefully at it on what I considered the slight possibility that the Lord had actually indicated that I would be able to do it. I have evidence now that I did not have 7 months ago that it may actually work. Jim Bromer --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Different problem types was Re: [agi] AGI and Wiki, was Understanding a sick puppy
2008/5/16 Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Does anyone else here share my dream of a worldwide AI with all of the knowledge of the human race to support it - built with EXISTING Wikipedia and Dr. Eliza software and a little glue to hold it all together? I'm taking this as a jumping off point to try and describe and expand upon something I have been mulling over whilst reading your messages. I think you and Matt are interested in solving the oracle problem. That is going to one entity for answers to general questions. I am interested in solving more personal problems. That is there are problems that are unique to the individual at each time. The search problem is a good example. To present the optimal search for an individual you must have as much data about the individual as possible. For example if the search engine knew I had been talking to you it would return different results when I searched for Dr. Eliza (assuming google knows anything about your system). As I would not be comfortable with this level of information being known about me, a centralized search oracle will not work (I will have to stop using gmail when AI gets too advanced). The problems essence is finding pertinent information and presenting it at the right time to the user. I shall call it the whisperer class of problems for the moment. I am also strongly interested in Augmented Reality, where knowing when to interrupt you with emails and other communications is an important thing for the system to do. Both types of system are important, I don't think I can do a decent whisperer system with current technologies, including Dr Eliza. Not to denigrate your approach, but to acknowledge that there are more types of problems out there to be solved. Will Pearson --- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Re: pattern definition
Mike, It's not all geometric. Patterns need not be defined by vector' lines, or only magnitudes of image properties. The same recognition mechanisms in the brain are emulatable by mathematical, indexable, categorizable, recognizable and systematic, engineered processes. Even images of Madonna- which it's nice to whip out more complex(complicated) examples to entice refutement - you should start off with simpler and then move to complex a.k.a. engineering verses philosophy. But building up a pattern recognizer is not something that is formidable, it's just work that needs to be done. I don't see problems here even with complex imagery, video it's just resources. Sure some algorithms need to be refined and an AGI algorithm verses standard pattern recognition hardcoded- the same algorithms should be applicable to visual, audial, language - over a diverse set of I/O streams. john From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:01 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Re: pattern definition Joe, Thanks for reply - yes, I thought you meant something like this, but it's good to have it spelled out. I think you're making what seems to me to be a v. common mistake among AGI-ers. Yes, you can reduce any image whatsoever on a computer screen, to some set of mathemetical formulae/properties. You can reduce it to so many lines, points, triangles, fractals etc. etc But that's not the problem. The problem is: how do you do that *systematically* for a SET of images (not just one)? How can you guarantee (or come anywhere remotely close) that your system of GEOMETRIC FORM analysis will be able to recognize the same OBJECT FORMS in many different images? - that by breaking complex images down into all those lines, points etc in whatever way you choose, you will be able to recognize, say, the faces, noses, mouths, necks etc in several, different images? Or the plastic bags in them? To focus the problem - in admittedly a v. difficult form (but hopefully it will help you focus better) - how will your *geometric* system recognize the faces and their parts in this set of images, as humans can: http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/spanish/sp371/images/esperpento/goya_viejos. jpg http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/2/2f/El_Greco.jpg http://www.nzine.co.nz/images/articles/picasso_lg.jpg http://www.roussard.com/media/oeuvres/modigliani/lithos/modiglianiIMGP6719.j pg http://www.gerard-schurmann.com/bacon.jpg http://aphrabehn.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/scarfe1.jpg http://www.oppdalfilmklubb.no/img/the-wall.jpg http://www.frederickwildman.com/wildmansite/wmphp/images/hugel/10large.jpg http://internat.martinique.free.fr/images/le_sommeil-salvador_dali.jpg (Note that even a set of ordinarily photographed faces in different positions will still present all kinds of recognition problems). How IOW do you equate an OBJECT FORM like that of face/ nose/ mouth/ chair/ tree/ oak/ handbag etc. etc. with GEOMETRIC FORMS? I am pretty sure that no such equation is possible, period - given that objects can take a vast if not infinite range of forms from different POV's.and in different positions. And that surely is what the history of failures in visual object recognition tells us. (What BTW is *your* explanation of that history of failure? It is rather surprising (no?) that so many AGI-ers can state that images can definitely be analysed geometrically, given the field's striking lack of success here. Surely a certain amount of questioning and soul-or-some-part-of-brain-searching is in order here). I think it's worth thrashing this subject out, because it keeps cropping up here and elsewhere and is so important - and you seem like a reasonable guy, so maybe we ( anyone else) can do that. I think my distinction between geometric form and object form is v. helpful for discussions here, it may not be at all new, but it doesn't seem to be commonplace. P.S. Yes, bucket is a simple object - and it's conceivable that a lot of people might come up with similar mental visualisations of the concept - but even then you might be surprised - and McLuhan's point was re WORD descriptions of buckets and other objects. If you think you can describe it or almost any other object verbally, be my guest :). Even recognising the buckets in different images - (and therefore developing a viable equation of bucket with geometric forms) - strikes me as no simple task for a computer: http://classroomclipart.com/images/gallery/New/Clipart3/paint_brush.jpg http://www.craftamerica.com/images/products/6500_75_rusty_tin_bucket.jpg http://christopher-pelley.abbozzogallery.com/images/red%20bucket.jpg http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/487639/2/istockphoto_4876 39_bucket_and_spade.jpg http://z.about.com/d/hotels/1/0/l/G/bucket.jpg http://www.bobjonespaintings.com/large%20images/bucket.jpg http://www.jenklairkids.com/Eshop/products/girl_dog_bucket.jpg
