I said: For example, you can think of a dynamic system like an amazing fireworks display in which the first pattern spawns a second pattern which spawns the first pattern over again.
Oops I went back to the pattern generator thing. Imagine a pattern which was comprised of a set of smaller patterns which were all composed of patterns that were like the first one. The patterns of the meta pattern are meta patterns of the first pattern (which was the first meta pattern). Like a fractal. Once you move away from the narrow definition of a pattern (which almost all of humanity has done) and you want to be able to show people how such methods can be used to find interesting abstractions, then you will go beyond some people's comfort zones. The modern definitions of a pattern have to be constrained by an intuitive appreciation of what constitutes a pattern, but as some people become aware of the similarities or commonalities of different kinds of definitions they will intuitively grasp the new breadth of the definitions as they learn to appreciate the new applications of the concept. Jim Bromer On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, [email protected] <[email protected] > > wrote: > You lost me on why that would make it any harder to define the difference > between patterns and metapatterns. A pattern is a constraint applied to a > set of things which is expressed as a description of those things' > parts/structure. As such, patterns themselves can be placed in a set > constrained by their own parts/structure, creating a metapattern which acts > as a category over those patterns > ------------------------------ > Well to be honest, I was thinking of the difference between a pattern > generator and a meta-pattern generator when I said that. However the same > thing applies to a pattern and a meta pattern. If "a meta pattern" is the > category over "some patterns" then the two concepts can be distinguished if > the relation is so defined (or a conclusion is constrained by the original > definition of things). However, I believe that concepts are relativistic > and in this case there are some problems with the definition when using it > as a method of recognition. A meta-pattern is a pattern (according to the > traditional way of thinking about meta-things) and therefore, by > definition, we find that such things have to be classified as patterns. > > While you can define the distinction (as in a declaration of a given > definition) that does not mean that it would be so easy to give a clear > definition of the thing when you saw it. > > For example, you can think of a dynamic system like an amazing fireworks > display in which the first pattern spawns a second pattern which spawns the > first pattern over again. Although this definition is a little stretched, > there are more important systems in computer science (which I can not > clearly think of at this time but which are very relevant to the problem of > AGI.) > > Conceptual relativism is serious stuff. > Jim Bromer > > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, [email protected] <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> You lost me on why that would make it any harder to define the difference >> between patterns and metapatterns. A pattern is a constraint applied to a >> set of things which is expressed as a description of those things' >> parts/structure. As such, patterns themselves can be placed in a set >> constrained by their own parts/structure, creating a metapattern which acts >> as a category over those patterns. It's the difference between a set of >> sets and the union of those same sets. Or if you want a different analogy, >> it's the difference between a group of regular expressions which match >> against strings, and a regular expression which matches strings that fit >> the syntax of regular expressions. But fundamentally, the reason this >> conversation is so complicated is the mixing of levels between description >> & described. You are both trying to describe what a description or pattern >> is. What you say about a pattern or description is not that pattern or >> description itself. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> On Aug 23, 2012 9:25 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Aaron, >> Thanks for helping me with a word. (Meta pattern). But we have been >> going through this kind of thing with Mike for years and years. He doesn't >> get it because he doesn't want to or can't. >> >> The elements that I mentioned were elements. The white color, for >> example, was clearly an element of the patterns. The fact that someone >> might think that a precise form like a particular triangle of the same size >> and shape had to be the finest definition of an element in some collection >> of patterns doesn't make it so. Yes we can agree on a definition of what >> qualifies as an element or we can agree to disagree, but my point is that >> the color white was an element that was common to every one of those >> designs and there is no equivocation around that. So the difference between >> the meta pattern and the pattern may not be so easy to define. >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, [email protected] <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Where the disagreement arises is that these two are talking about >>> different levels of representation. It's the difference between use ("a >>> dog" or "a pattern") and mention ("the word 'dog'" or "the pattern >>> 'pattern'"). Mike is insisting on a strictly use-based representation, >>> looking for common elements *between* the patterns, and Jim is failing to >>> point out the difference between elements and characteristics, the >>> characteristics of the different patterns being the elements of the >>> metapattern. >>> >>> -Aaron >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> On Aug 23, 2012 7:38 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> If you want to put that mathematically, take a whole set of diverse >>>> patterns – Koch curve, Mandelbrot, herringbone, cellular automaton etc . >>>> etc. – and explain how the brain is able to abstract from *all of them >>>> together* and recognize them collectively as “patterns” (and not just as >>>> Koch curves/herringbones etc. etc). >>>> >>>> Where’s the pattern in a set of diverse patterns, B & B? And where’s >>>> the complexity, Jim? >>>> >>> >>> >>> that's easy, these are all obviously susceptible to lossy compression >>> using algorithms native to the brain... >>> >>> ben >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | >>> 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/303/23050605-e1815e61> | >> 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/303/10561250-164650b2> | >> 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/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
