Then please provide the demonstration. With regards to your "challenge", all of mathematics and logic is about the representation and analysis of patterns. Describing and manipulating patterns is the very reason these languages were invented. So I'm not clear on what it is you're claiming is missing here. It seems that maybe you are using the word "patterned" to mean something other than what I understand it to mean. What does it mean for the concept "add" to "embrace a pattern"? And why would you not be able to do math or logic if the concepts they depend on are "patternist" (whatever that word means to you)?
If you want to convince anyone to take you seriously, much less to agree with you, you need to be a *lot* clearer in communicating your ideas. You have these primitive, undefined terms you throw about, and you describe relationships between them which you seem to think should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but before anyone can understand another person, they must speak the same language first, or at least a close approximation. This is the first rule of geekdom: 90% of the time when two geeks argue, it is a misunderstanding due to different working definitions of a term. The rest of the time it is because of clashing egos. Define your terms more concretely and explain how you come to your conclusions, rather than throwing out words that mean something different to yourself than everyone else and expecting us to magically follow your reasoning. I would love to understand whatever point it is that you're trying to make, but I (like others on this list) lose patience when you refuse to take the time to express it fully and precisely. You must lay the groundwork that gives substance and meaning to your claims before you begin trying to argue people into agreeing with you. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels, communicating your eagerness to convice but not the thing of which you want us to be convinced. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > > P.S. The unpatterned nature of concepts is *mathematically* and > *logically* demonstrable. > > Let me make my challenge still more precise and easy for you: > > show one single concept in the whole of *MATHEMATICS* or *LOGIC* that is > patterned. > > “Line”, “number,” “pattern”, “add”, “subtract”, “rational”, > “irrational”, “deduce”, “induce”, “conclusion” ... et al > > Show one that embraces a pattern. > > The irony is that you couldn’t do maths or logic if the concepts on > which they depend, *were* patternist. > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | > 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
