Re: [agi] Determinism
On both points I will concede. David Clark - Original Message - From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Determinism You might be correct for your project but I doubt that the Math contained in your project is more than a small fraction of the code. All algorithms aren't Math and most code has to do with Computer Science techniques not Math. Well, since we are using C++, most of our code has to do with neither Mathematics nor Computer Science but just C++ language muckery I didn't say Math was useless for AGI, just not a relevant as other Computer Science techniques. Well, it seems to me that for AGI using methods other than human brain emulation, math is pretty important. In terms of Novamente, it doesn't really make sense to prioritize mathematics versus computer science. We'd have no Novamente without probability theory, but we'd also have no Novamente without basic "algorithms & data structures" stuff. Both are absolutely necessary given the type of approach that we're taking. -- Ben -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
dc: I have never been impressed by complicated formulas and I have been many slick (Math) talking people who couldn't produce anything that worked in the real world. Ben: A fascinating Freudian slip! ;-) Wow - you're the first AI person I've come across with any Freudian perspective. Minsky made a similar slip. I'd argued that he had never really defined the problem of AGI. His response was: MM: "As E. just said, "There are many defs but few help ." Making definitions often does more hard than good when you don't understand situations" I pointed out that the Freudian slip - substituting "hard" for "harm" - was revealing of the real reason for his lack of a good definition. But I think it all passed him by. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
>> Well, since we are using C++, most of our code has to do with neither >> Mathematics nor Computer Science but just C++ language muckery Consider me to be tweaking you again for this . . . . :-) Have you considered a real development language and platform? (No need to reply . . . . I'm just abusing you . . . . :-) >> In terms of Novamente, it doesn't really make sense to prioritize >> mathematics versus computer science. We'd have no Novamente without >> probability theory, but we'd also have no Novamente without basic >> "algorithms & data structures" stuff. Both are absolutely necessary given >> the type of approach that we're taking. You mean that probability theory is math instead of computer science?:-) Seriously though, I'd have a really hard time drawing a Venn diagram for mathematics and computer science (and I'm sure that anything that I did do would be up for *serious* debate (like making operating system holy wars a minor skirmish in comparison :-) - Original Message - From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Determinism You might be correct for your project but I doubt that the Math contained in your project is more than a small fraction of the code. All algorithms aren't Math and most code has to do with Computer Science techniques not Math. Well, since we are using C++, most of our code has to do with neither Mathematics nor Computer Science but just C++ language muckery I didn't say Math was useless for AGI, just not a relevant as other Computer Science techniques. Well, it seems to me that for AGI using methods other than human brain emulation, math is pretty important. In terms of Novamente, it doesn't really make sense to prioritize mathematics versus computer science. We'd have no Novamente without probability theory, but we'd also have no Novamente without basic "algorithms & data structures" stuff. Both are absolutely necessary given the type of approach that we're taking. -- Ben -- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
You might be correct for your project but I doubt that the Math contained in your project is more than a small fraction of the code. All algorithms aren't Math and most code has to do with Computer Science techniques not Math. Well, since we are using C++, most of our code has to do with neither Mathematics nor Computer Science but just C++ language muckery I didn't say Math was useless for AGI, just not a relevant as other Computer Science techniques. Well, it seems to me that for AGI using methods other than human brain emulation, math is pretty important. In terms of Novamente, it doesn't really make sense to prioritize mathematics versus computer science. We'd have no Novamente without probability theory, but we'd also have no Novamente without basic "algorithms & data structures" stuff. Both are absolutely necessary given the type of approach that we're taking. -- Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
- Original Message - From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Determinism I have never been impressed by complicated formulas and I have been many slick (Math) talking people who couldn't produce anything that worked in the real world. A fascinating Freudian slip! ;-) You caught me for not checking my wording better. It should have read "I have seen" not "I have been". I'm not saying that some Math isn't useful for AGI in limited instances, but I have yet to see any great program that relied very heavily on Math. Most of the examples I have seen of explaining simple concepts using Math on this list has resulted in less accurate communication rather than better. Well, if Novamente succeeds, it will be a disproof of your above statement. The basic NM design is not motivated by mathematics, but plenty of math has been used in deriving the details of various aspects of the system. Mostly math at the advanced undergraduate level though -- no algebraic topology, several complex variables, etc. We use some probability theory ... and some of the theory of rewriting systems, lambda calculus, etc. This stuff is in a subordinate role to a cognitive-systems-theory-based design, but is still very useful... You might be correct for your project but I doubt that the Math contained in your project is more than a small fraction of the code. All algorithms aren't Math and most code has to do with Computer Science techniques not Math. Some people view all computer code as a kind of Math but I don't see giving Math such a broad definition very useful. I didn't say Math was useless for AGI, just not a relevant as other Computer Science techniques. David Clark - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
On Monday 14 May 2007 11:02:33 am Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > We use some probability theory ... and some of the theory of rewriting > systems, lambda calculus, etc. This stuff is in a subordinate role to a > cognitive-systems-theory-based design, but is still very useful... ditto -- and for my part, quite a lot of linear algebra and calculus thru ODEs (but no PDEs so far). Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
RE: [agi] Determinism
Have to blurb on this as it irks me - Even if you write a "Hello World" app it is a mathematical entity expressed through a mathematical medium. Software layers from source to binary to OS to drivers are a gradation from the mathematically abstract to the physical world as is with painting an abstract image with oils on canvas. The electronics hierarchy that the software runs on is more binary and systematic than oils on canvas. Great programs that heavily use math to name a few I've used are engineering apps like Autocad, Ansys, Solidworks, 3D Design - 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Maya, SoftImage the list is unfathomable Chemical design - ChemOffice Electronics - Electronics Workbench, VisualSpice Audio Processing - Audition, SpectraPlus Accounting - Quickbooks, spreadsheets -Excel, Data analysis - MatLab, there are too many categories and these are just some off the shelf greats not custom built... The closer the software can get to mathematics the better and more powerful. It's like the world can be described instead of mass, energy, the fundamental interactions will probably be united with a model that is described with data only as data is the unifying force, expression and operations on data are just re-expressions of data, the data and operations are the same. Software is a very good utilitarian expression virtualized on this unifying data space. For AGI there are the pure knowledge cognition engines existing only in theory of which these engines approach infinite intelligence. The problem is breaking chunks of these models off, or coming up with simpler models, and fitting the models into the real world running on practical engineering systems like software running on computers that are contemporary or will be contemporary in the near future. For AGI design we tend to leave the mathematical proofs up to the experts and rely on their results using that knowledge as a supply of tools and components for building data interaction systems. The library of mathematical results from proofs is so large and untapped that it is really hard for me to imagine an AGI is not running right now somewhere on someone's computer. That is the opportunity in this sort of thing. Software building in general is a continuous struggle of materializing into software the non-materialized mathematics that is applicable and can generate or enhance a revenue model or interest for its survival. As classifying all software it could be done based on source code as DNA but I'm now thinking that it should be done based on incorporated and/or the utilized mathematics, as source code is just a mathematical structure and the function of the software is a type of emergent behavior of the souce code and can be distilled into mathematical descriptor trees for different software categories and lineages. John From: David Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Some people take Mathematics and their so called "proofs" as the gospel when it comes to programming and AGI. Even though I have a Math minor from University, I have used next to no Mathematics in my 30 year programming/design career. I have never been impressed by complicated formulas and I have been many slick (Math) talking people who couldn't produce anything that worked in the real world. I'm not saying that some Math isn't useful for AGI in limited instances, but I have yet to see any great program that relied very heavily on Math. Most of the examples I have seen of explaining simple concepts using Math on this list has resulted in less accurate communication rather than better. Turing machines and Chinese room experiments are fine for the philosophers that create nothing but hot air but I respect real designs that work in the real world. - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain
Pei Wang wrote: [snip] Can you be more specific here? What is the "nature" of a concept X? How can it contribute to operator construction? What is a "good relationship" between concepts? Pei Oh, rats! ;-) Now you are going to make me switch my brain on. Darn, I should have seen that coming. :-) I'll write an answer as soon as I can. Have been out of commission for a few days, so have some catching up to do. Richard Loosemore - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
On 5/14/07, David Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Even though I have a Math minor from University, I have used next to no Mathematics in my 30 year programming/design career. Yes, but what do you program? I've been programming for 24 years and I use math all the time. Recently I've been working with Marcus Hutter on a new learning algorithm based on a rather nasty mathematical derivation. The results kick butt. Another tricky derivation that Hutter did a few years back is now producing good results in processing gene expression data for cancer research. I could list many more... Anyway, my point is, whether you need math in your programing or not all depends on what it is that you are trying to program. Shane - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
Saying that you don't trade time for memory in models or any computer program just shows a lack of real world experience on the part of Matt IMHO. David Clark Of course CS is full of time/memory tradeoffs, but I think Matt's point was that a finite-state machine just can't completely simulate itself internally for basic algorithmic-information-theory reasons. However, it can **approximately** simulate itself, which is the important thing and is what we all do every day -- via the approximate simulations of ourselves that we call our selves... -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
I have never been impressed by complicated formulas and I have been many slick (Math) talking people who couldn't produce anything that worked in the real world. A fascinating Freudian slip! ;-) I'm not saying that some Math isn't useful for AGI in limited instances, but I have yet to see any great program that relied very heavily on Math. Most of the examples I have seen of explaining simple concepts using Math on this list has resulted in less accurate communication rather than better. Well, if Novamente succeeds, it will be a disproof of your above statement. The basic NM design is not motivated by mathematics, but plenty of math has been used in deriving the details of various aspects of the system. Mostly math at the advanced undergraduate level though -- no algebraic topology, several complex variables, etc. We use some probability theory ... and some of the theory of rewriting systems, lambda calculus, etc. This stuff is in a subordinate role to a cognitive-systems-theory-based design, but is still very useful... -- Ben - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Determinism
- Original Message - From: Derek Zahn To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:49 PM Subject: RE: [agi] Determinism Matt Mahoney writes: > (sigh) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scruffies I don't think my disagreement with Matt is about "Neats vs Scruffies"! Some people take Mathematics and their so called "proofs" as the gospel when it comes to programming and AGI. Even though I have a Math minor from University, I have used next to no Mathematics in my 30 year programming/design career. I have never been impressed by complicated formulas and I have been many slick (Math) talking people who couldn't produce anything that worked in the real world. I'm not saying that some Math isn't useful for AGI in limited instances, but I have yet to see any great program that relied very heavily on Math. Most of the examples I have seen of explaining simple concepts using Math on this list has resulted in less accurate communication rather than better. Turing machines and Chinese room experiments are fine for the philosophers that create nothing but hot air but I respect real designs that work in the real world. There are many algorithmic systems that are not solid state, one for one, real time simulations or models. Humans use what we call models all the time, and we have a tiny short term memory to work with. Saying that you don't trade time for memory in models or any computer program just shows a lack of real world experience on the part of Matt IMHO. David Clark - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Tommy
> Also anything you can find on case-based reasoning, tho it is woefully rare. Having done a lot of case-based reasoning almost 23 years ago . . . . Case-based reasoning is effectively analogous to weighted nearest neighbor in multi-dimensional space. If you (or the system) can define the dimensions and scale and weight them, it's an awesome method -- this is equivalent to the logic-based/expert-system approach to CBR. The other alternative, which most people don't realize is exactly equivalent to CBR, is to just use neural networks (since they just effectively "map" the multi-d space -- complete with scaling and weighting). Having used both methods, I would say that, until they both scale themselves fairly quickly into oblivion, the neural network method is more accurate while CBR provides much better explanations. The unfortunate thing is that as you add more and more dimensions, both methods falter pretty quickly. - Original Message - From: "J Storrs Hall, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Tommy > On Saturday 12 May 2007 10:24:03 pm Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > >> Do you have some interesting links about imitation? I've found these, >> not all of them interesting, I'm just showing what I have: > > Thanks -- some of those look interesting. I don't have any good links, but > I'd > reccomend Hurley & Chater, eds, Perspectives on Imitation (in 2 vols). > > Also anything you can find on case-based reasoning, tho it is woefully rare. > > Josh > > - > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Quick Hawkins Questions
A: I don't know of any that works too well (and invariantly, including recognizing mirrored images & different orientation etc... This is fairly important for a system functioning in a dynamic world, and it is obviously a tough nut to crack) Well, "too well" is ambiguous... There are plenty of image classification algorithms with published precision and recall results on test databases. The Poggio et al software seems to work about as well as humans do on the task of classifying images based on very rapid viewing (e.g. recognizing if there is a cat in an image flashed very rapidly in front of you). This makes sense because they have simulated only feedforward connections. Question is whether, when they add feedback connections, they will get a system that works about as well as humans do on the task of classifying images based on more leisurely viewing. No existing software system, including Poggio's or Hawkins', can equal humans on this task. But anyway, in terms of practical performance on real images, Hawkins' is nowhere near the best image classification system out there. Its ultimate potential when further developed is a whole other, and deeper, question, of course. I find Hawkins' approach lies in a funny middle-area between computer science and brain science. Poggio's work actually tries to simulate visual cortex. Hawkins' incorporates Bayes net learning which is known NOT to be how cortex works, but in an architecture inspired closely by cortex ... tries in this way to emulate the essence of what visual cortex does. Whereas my inclination tends to be toward approaches that stray even further from brain science... -- Ben G - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Quick Hawkins Questions
Here is an answer from another forum to my question: MT: So now I know what HTM can definitely do - recognize outline drawings of objects as "cup," "dog" etc. And that IS impressive? No other object recognition system has been able to do this before, as he claims? A: I don't know of any that works too well (and invariantly, including recognizing mirrored images & different orientation etc... This is fairly important for a system functioning in a dynamic world, and it is obviously a tough nut to crack) You can download that picture demonstration program and try it out yourself btw; http://www.numenta.com/about-numenta/technology/pictures-demo.php Try drawing some of the trained images, but have them mirrored for instance. The success rate is not mind blowing, but then the simulated network is (I reckon) very small. (We would need a huge network implemented in hardware before we can expect reasonable results in reasonable time) Note though that the success rate in a real world is not 100% for a human being either. AFAIK nothing more complex has been demonstrated with HTM. But it seems reasonable to assume that the method they are using can be used to recognize correlations between any spatial/temporal patterns (so that includes data from any sensory system... ...and indeed the human cortex is demonstrably able to recognize data from artificial sensory systems) And if you like to investigate more, the algorithm source is available: http://www.numenta.com/for-developers/software.php - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Tommy
On Saturday 12 May 2007 10:24:03 pm Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > Do you have some interesting links about imitation? I've found these, > not all of them interesting, I'm just showing what I have: Thanks -- some of those look interesting. I don't have any good links, but I'd reccomend Hurley & Chater, eds, Perspectives on Imitation (in 2 vols). Also anything you can find on case-based reasoning, tho it is woefully rare. Josh - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Quick Hawkins Questions
Yes, there are many systems that do object classification from photos.
For example, this recent work of Poggio et al seems to me significantly more
impressive
than Hawkins work-so-far,
cbcl.*mit*.edu/projects/cbcl/publications/ps/serre-wolf-*poggio*-PAMI-07.pdf
both in terms of biological realism and actual object classification
performance.
However, it only tries to simulate the feedforward classification activity
in the visual
cortex, not the feedback connections. They plan to add biologically
realistic
feedback connections to their network in a later version.
-- Ben
On 5/14/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks, Ben. If anyone knows more, I'd be grateful - that's such a huge,
fundamental claim - basically "no computer can [up till now] recognize a
cat, or any object" , that I think it's important to establish the
historical truth of it. (He actually didn't distinguish between
drawings/fotos. I did).
Are you saying, for example, some current systems can recognize basic
objects like cups/cats from photos? I guess that means: recognize "it's a
cat" from either a) photos of several different cats and/ or b) photos of
the same cat in several different positions.
- Original Message -
*From:* Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2007 3:58 AM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Quick Hawkins Questions
On 5/13/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here's a link to a lecture of his that's clearer than anything I've
> read (incl. the book):
>
> http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/316/
>
> Bottom line: his system can recognize simple objects from outline
> drawings - like "dog", "cup." That seems to be the only concrete claim he's
> making right now. There's no indication it can yet do anything more - like,
> say. recognize simple movements ("dog bite", "cup fall") or recognize
> objects from more complex photos Am I correct here?
>
> Secondly: he seems to be claiming that NO visual object recognition
> system has achieved this before. If so, is he correct?
>
>
>
I'm not sure how many people have **tried** to make software systems that
recognize outline drawings...
Most vision researchers have focused more on recognition of images in
photos...
Probably if other researchers tried to tune their systems to recognize
outline drawings, they could...
-- Ben G
--
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 13/05/2007
12:17
--
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
Re: [agi] Tommy
On Sunday 13 May 2007 08:14:43 am Kingma, D.P. wrote: > John, as I wrote earlier, I'm very interested in learning more about your > particular approach to: > - Concept and pattern representation. (i.e. types of concept, patterns, > relations?) As I mentioned in another note, (about the tennis ball), a concept is a set of programs that embody your abilities to recognize, manipulate, and predict some thing, and to make inferences about its past. > - Concept creation. (searching for statistically signifcant spatiotemporal > correlations, genetic programming, neural networks, ?) I think that the brain has a lot of what Ben calls "pattern mining" in the hardware; and for our purposes, conventional (including some recent) work in ML/PR seems to be adequate. The main key to the process, though, is to have what programming language theorists call a "reflective tower": for the language to be able to represent itself, and thus reason about its own programs, and thus about the programs it uses to reason about programs, etc, etc. (BTW, this is where standard programming language theory fails us, in that they are very enamored of provably complete logics below the Gödel line. This is all very well for writing provably correct red-black tree implementations, but they are playing with pebbles on the beach, as it were, with a great ocean of truth lying undiscovered before them.) > - Concept revision/optimization. You mention you use search techniques, > could you be a little more specific? I try to represent the data as numeric vectors as much as possible so I can use standard scientific regression methods to create the functions that predict it. Discrete stuff is harder -- AI has tackled it for 50 years with modest results. However, it's my intuition and hope that continuous models underneath (and lots of brute force processing) will provide the "intuition" to conquer the combinatorial explosion. (Consider backprop: the finished neural net is not unlike the same function implemented in perceptrons, except that with a step function instead of a sigmoid you have no traction whatsoever for hill-climbing towards an optimum.) > Unfortunately you did not go into specifics yet. Since you wrote that your > ideas are "firm enough to start doing experiments", I was hoping you could > give a glimpse of the underlying idea's. I.e., what's your "You're speaking > of a "high-level functional reactive programming language" exactly? "If I were going to spend 8 hours chopping down a tree," said Abraham Lincoln, "I'd spend the first 6 sharpening my axe." When you're trying to write an AI, you don't need the distractions and extra work of worrying about storage allocation, process migration and communication, data formats, and so forth -- those wheels have already been invented (as have statistical analysis, regression, and so forth). Build a system with those easily available and interoperable, and worry about AI things thereafter. The easiest languages to "reflect" about are the functional ones -- ones where the semantics resemble math more than assembly language. This is all well and good, except that the pure functional paradigm leaves out the ability to deal with time. (You can't write X=X+1 in a functional language, because it isn't true!) There are 4 main ways people have tried to extend functional languages to deal with time. The first is ad hoc, as in Lisp: mix a functional language with an imperative one. Second, in what were called "applicative state transition" systems, model a big state machine and use the functional language to write the transition function. Third, the current favorite in the PLT crowd, is category theoretic monads: write a function that computes a list that is a trace of the behavior you want the program to enact. And finally, functional reactive programming, is to write a function that is interpreted as a circuit, where each value is actually a signal that varies in time. This, it turns out, is how the physicists and engineers have done it all along: a systems-and-signals circuit in control theory or cybernetics is isomorphic to a FR program. > One reason I'm interested is that there are many approaches to unsupervised > learning of physical (or just graphical) concepts, and I'm thinking of Serre > et al, Hawkins, neural network specialists (Geoffrey Hinton) and there could > be many more. But none of these theories I know of are strong enough to > extract high-level concepts such as 'gravity'. Neither is the average human being -- Newton was one of the great geniuses. What the average human does is expect things to fall down. Experiments with people who haven't studied physics show that they have a very poor ability to predict what will happen in simple experiments. (For example, more than half of undergrads and non-science faculty, when asked to draw the path that would be taken by a ball rolling off the edge of a table, don't draw anything
Re: [agi] Quick Hawkins Questions
Thanks, Ben. If anyone knows more, I'd be grateful - that's such a huge,
fundamental claim - basically "no computer can [up till now] recognize a cat,
or any object" , that I think it's important to establish the historical truth
of it. (He actually didn't distinguish between drawings/fotos. I did).
Are you saying, for example, some current systems can recognize basic objects
like cups/cats from photos? I guess that means: recognize "it's a cat" from
either a) photos of several different cats and/ or b) photos of the same cat in
several different positions.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Goertzel
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Quick Hawkins Questions
On 5/13/07, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's a link to a lecture of his that's clearer than anything I've read
(incl. the book):
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/316/
Bottom line: his system can recognize simple objects from outline drawings
- like "dog", "cup." That seems to be the only concrete claim he's making right
now. There's no indication it can yet do anything more - like, say. recognize
simple movements ("dog bite", "cup fall") or recognize objects from more
complex photos Am I correct here?
Secondly: he seems to be claiming that NO visual object recognition system
has achieved this before. If so, is he correct?
I'm not sure how many people have **tried** to make software systems that
recognize outline drawings...
Most vision researchers have focused more on recognition of images in
photos...
Probably if other researchers tried to tune their systems to recognize
outline drawings, they could...
-- Ben G
--
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 13/05/2007
12:17
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
