On screenshots, the point of view is equivalent to the absolute positions and their relative positions using absolute(screen x and y) measurements.
You don't need a robot to learn about how AGI works and figure out how to solve some problems. It would be a terrible mistake to spend years, or even weeks for that matter, on robotics before getting started. Dave On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > Sounds like a good explanation of why a body is essential for vision - > not just for POV and orientation [up/left/right/down/ towards/ away] but for > comparison and yardstick - you do know when your body or parts thereof are > moving -and it's not merely touch but the comparison of other objects still > and moving with your own moving hands and body that is important. > > The more you go into it, the crazier the prospect of vision without eyes in > a body becomes. > > *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:54 PM > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How do we Score Hypotheses? > > Jim, > > even that isn't an obvious event. You don't know what is background and > what is not. You don't even know if there is an object or not. You don't > know if anything moved or not. You can make some observations using > predefined methods and then see if you find matches... then hypothesize > about the matches... > > It all has to be learned and figured out through reasoning. > > That's why I asked what you meant by definitive events. Nothing is really > definitive. It is all hypothesized in a non-monotonic manner. > > Dave > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> What do you mean by definitive events? >>> >> >> >> I was just trying to find a way to designate obsverations that would be >> reliably obvious to a computer program. This has something to do with the >> assumptions that you are using. For example if some object appeared against >> a stable background and it was a different color than the background, it >> would be a definitive observation event because your algorithm could detect >> it with some certainty and use it in the definition of other more >> complicated events (like occlusion.) Notice that this example would not >> necessarily be so obvious (a definitive event) using a camera, because there >> are a number of ways that an illusion (of some kind) could end up as a data >> event. >> >> I will try to reply to the rest of your message sometime later. >> Jim Bromer >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
