Mike,
When you type "Chair" what should happen is the AGI's model should activate the
chair conceptfirst at a perceptual level to form the pixels into the words,
then at a linguistic level to form lettersinto a word, then at a conceptual
level, then at a simulation level where images of chair instances are evoked.
This is just simple activation. Semantic networks tied into perception and
simulation would achieve the necessary effect you seek. Transformations on
these perception-simulation-semantic networks is what much of Piaget's work was
about.
~PM.
From: tint...@blueyonder.co.uk
To: a...@listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Superficiality Produces Misunderstanding - Not Good
Enough
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:09:30 +0100
CHAIR
...
It should be able to handle any transformation of the concept, as in
DRAW ME (or POINT TO/RECOGNIZE) A CHAIR IN TWO PIECES –..
..SQUASHED
..IN PIECES
-HALF VISIBLE
..WITH AN ARM MISSING
...WITH NO SEAT
..IN POLKA DOTS
...WITH RED STRIPES
Concepts are designed for a world of everchanging, everevolving multiform
objects (and actions). Semantic networks have zero creativity or
adaptability – are applicable only to a uniform set of objects, (basically a
database) - and also, crucially, have zero ability to physically recognize
or interact with the relevant objects. I’ve been into it at length recently.
You’re the one not paying attention.
The suggestion that networks or similar can handle concepts is completely
absurd.
This is yet another form of the central problem of AGI, which you clearly
do not understand – and I’m not trying to be abusive – I’ve been realising
this again recently – people here are culturally punchdrunk with concepts like
*concept* and *creativity*, and just don’t understand them in terms of
AGI.
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:04 PM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Superficiality Produces Misunderstanding -
Not Good Enough
Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
AI doesn’t handle concepts.
Give me one example to prove that AI doesn't handle concepts.
Jim Bromer
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Jim: Mike
refuses to try to understand what I am saying because he would have to give
up
his sense of a superior point of view in order to understand
it
Concepts have nothing to do with
semantic networks.
AI doesn’t handle
concepts.
That is the challenge for
AGI.
The form of concepts is
graphics.
The referents of concepts are
infinite realms..
What are you saying that is relevant
to this, or that can challenge this – from any evidence?
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/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
