Mike, Quoting a previous email:
QUOTE In fact, the "chair" patterns you refer to are not strictly physical patterns. The pattern is based on how the objects can be used, what their intended uses probably are, and what most common effective uses are. So, chairs are objects that are used to sit on. You can identify objects whose most likely use is for sitting based on experience. END QUOTE Even refrigerators can be chairs. If a fridge is in the woods and you're out there camping, you can sit on it. I could say "sit on that fridge couch over there". The fact that multiple people can sit on it, makes it possible to call it a couch. But, it's odd to call it a chair, because it's a fridge. So, when the object has a more "common effective use", as I stated above, it is usually referred to by that use. If something is most likely used for sitting by a single person, then it is a chair. If its most common best use is something else, like cooling food, you would call it a fridge. So, maybe the pattern would be, if it has some features like a chair, like possible arm rests, a soft bottom, cushions, legs, a back rest, etc. and you can't see it being used as anything else, then maybe it's a chair. If someone sits on it, it certainly is a chair, if you find it by searching for chairs, its likely a chair. etc. You see, chairs are not simply recognized by their physical structure. There are multiple ways you can recognize it and it is certainly important to know that it doesn't seem useful for another task. The idea that chairs cannot be recognized because they come in all shapes, sizes and structures is just wrong. Dave On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > Examples of nonphysical patterns? > > *From:* David Jones <davidher...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, August 09, 2010 1:34 PM > *To:* agi <agi@v2.listbox.com> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] How To Create General AI Draft2 > > You see. This is precisely why I don't want to argue with Mike anymore. "it > must be a physical pattern". LOL. Who ever said that patterns must be > physical? This is exactly why you can't see my point of view. You impose > unnecessary restrictions on any possible solution when there really are no > such restrictions. > > Dave > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > >> John:It can be defined mathematically in many ways >> >> Try it - crude drawings/jottings/diagrams totally acceptable. See my set >> of fotos to Dave. >> >> (And yes, you're right this is of extreme importance. And no. Dave, there >> are no such things as "non-physical patterns"). >> >> > *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
