I accidentally pressed something and it sent it early... this is a finished version:
Mike, Using the image itself as a template to match is possible. In fact it has been done before. But it suffers from several problems that would also need solving. 1) Images are 2D. I assume you are also referring to 2D outlines. Real objects are 3D. So, you're going to have to infer the shape of the object... which means you are no longer actually transforming the image itself. You are transforming a model of the image, which would have points, curves, dimensions, etc. Basically, a mathematical shape :) No matter how much you disapprove of encoding info, sometimes it makes sense to do it. 2) Creating the first outline and figuring out what to outline is not trivial at all. So, this method can only be used after you can do that. There is a lot more uncertainty involved here than you seem to realize. First, how do you even determine the outline? That is an unsolved problem. So, not only will you have to try many transformations with the right outline, you have to try many with wrong outlines, increase the possibilities (exponentially?). It looks like you need a way to score possibilities and decide which ones to try. 3) "rock" is a word and words are always learned by induction along with other types of reasoning before we can even consider it a type of object. So, you are starting with a somewhat unrepresentative or artificial problem. 4) Even the same rock can look very different from different perspectives. In fact, how do you even match the same rock? Please describe how your system would do this. It is not trivial at all. And you will soon see that there is an extremely large amount of uncertainty. Dealing with this type of uncertainty is the central problem of AGI. The central problem is not fluid schemas.Even if I used this method, I would be stuck with the same exact uncertainty problems. So, you're not going to get passed them like this. The same research on explanatory and non-monotonic type reasoning must still be done. 5) what is a fluid transform? You can't just throw out words. Please define it. You are going to realize that your representation is pretty much geometric anyway. Regardless, it will likely be equivalent. Are you going to try every possible transformation? Nope. That would be impossible. So, how do you decide what transformations to try? When is a transformation too large of a change to consider it the same rock? When is it too large to consider it a different rock? 6) Are you seriously going to "transform" every object you've every tried to outline? This is going to be prohibitively costly in terms of processing. Especially because you haven't defined how you're going to decide what to transform and what not to. So, before you can even use this algorithm, you're going to have to use something else to decide what is a possible candidate and what is not. On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > > Now let's see **you** answer a question. Tell me how any > algorithmic/mathematical approach of any kind actual or in pure principle > can be applied to recognize "raindrops falling down a pane" - and to > "predict" their movement? > Like I've said many times before, we can't predict everything, and we certainly shouldn't try. But we should "expect" what might happen. Raindrops are probably recognized as an unexpected distortion when it occurs on a window. When its not on a window, it is still a sort of distortion of brightness and just a small object with different contrast. You're right that geometric definitions are not the right way to recognize that. It would have to use a different method to remember the features/properties of raindrops and how they appeared, such as the contrast, size, quantity, location, context, etc. > http://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/263778/beautiful-rain-drops.html > > or to recognize a "rock"? > A specific rock could be recognized with geometric definitions. Texture is certainly important, size, context (very important), etc. If we are talking about the category rock, that's different than the instance of a rock. The category of a rock probably needs a description of the types of properties that rocks have, such as the types of curves, texture, sizes, interactions, behavior, etc. Exactly how you do it, I haven't decided. I'm not at that point yet. > > http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/IMG/LPR/adams.jpg > > or a [filled] shopping bag? > same as the rock. > > http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200801/r215609_837743.jpg > > http://www.sustainableisgood.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/29/shoppingbags.jpg > > http://thegogreenblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/plastic_shopping_bag.jpg > > or if you want a real killer, google some vid clips of amoebas in oozing > motion? > same. > > PS In every case, I suggest, the brain observes different principles of > transformation - for the most part unconsciously. And they can be of various > kinds not just direct natural transformations, of course. It's possible, it > occurs to me, that the principle that applies to rocks might just be > something like "whatever can be carved out of stone" > it doesn't necessarily focus on the object itself. it may be focusing on the context, behavior of the object, its obvious properties such as rigidity, texture, size, etc, There are many ways to do this. it doesn't necessarily transform everything. In fact, I think transformations would be prohibitively costly in terms of processing unless it is only transforming instances that are very short amounts of time apart and the changes are minor. ------------------------------------------- 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
