On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Harry Chesley <ches...@acm.org> wrote: > On 1/9/2009 9:28 AM, Vladimir Nesov wrote: >> >> You need to name those parameters in a sentence only because it's >> linear, in a graph they can correspond to unnamed nodes. Abstractions >> can have structure, and their applicability can depend on how their >> structure matches the current scene. If you retain in a scene graph >> only relations you mention, that'd be your abstraction. > > I'm not sure if you mean a graph in the sense of nodes and edges, or in a > visual sense. > > If the former, any implementation requires that the edges identify or link > somehow to the appropriate nodes -- so how is this done in humans and what > experiments reveal it? If the later, the location in space of the node in > the abstract graph is effectively it's identity -- are you suggesting that > human abstraction is always visual, and if so what experimental evidence is > there? > > I don't mean to include or exclude your theory of abstraction, but the > question is whether you know of experiments that shed light on this area. >
Graph as with nodes. It's more a reply to your remark that you have to introduce names in order to communicate the abstraction than to the rest. AFAIK, neuroscience is far from answering or even formulating properly questions like this, but you can analyze theoretical models of cognitive algorithms that answer your questions. -- Vladimir Nesov robot...@gmail.com http://causalityrelay.wordpress.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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
