Please discurse upon the nature of conceptual thinking/language now, rather than waiting til later. I don't think we'll ever understand what the flaw is that you're trying to point out until you bother to suggest an alternative or solution in effective language. How on earth are patterns the opposite of concepts?
It seems to me that your entire complaint is that the world is messy, and you therefore think that dealing with patterns ignores that part of the world. But the existence of messes doesn't negate the existence of patterns. Dealing with patterns is necessary for generalization, whereas recording details in memory is what's important for dealing with messes. I'm sure the majority of us recognize that, considering that lesson was learned back in the 60s with the advent of AI. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Boris, > > Yet another definition of pattern: this really isn’t going to win any > prizes for definitions – you’ve been criticised for lack of clarity, and > this is a classic example. > > Wiki is simple enough: > > A *pattern*, from the French<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language> > *patron*, is a type of theme of recurring events or objects, sometimes > referred to as elements of a > set<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)> > of objects.The elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner > > However, ALL THESE PATTERN DEFINITIONS DON’T REALLY MATTER. > > Basically, **there is no substantive disagreement about the nature of > patterns.** We ,may use different terms and definitions but we’re all > talking in all our disagreements about the same things. > > So let’s get to your (& other AGI-ers’) main contention: > > “semantic concepts, .. are either generalized empirical patterns (objects > & processes), or are strictly relational. There is no other way to define a > “concept“” > > This is absolute nonsense – & a central issue for AGI. > > > > **THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE CONCEPT THAT CAN BE DEFINED AS A PATTERN**. > > > > “Tree”... “box”.. “car”... “go”... “hit”... “shoot”... “pattern”... > “form..” ..”shape..” “government..” “A.I.”.....*Obama*.. > *love*...*sex*... *red*... *colour* > > None of these are patterns - or refer to patterned groups of > objects/actions. Take any of these concepts and you will find that the > different examples, past, present and still-to-be-realised in the future, > do NOT present “matching inputs” per you, or “repeating elements” or > “common elements in common positions” or any other definition or reality of > patterns. SOME members of the group may fit a pattern, but a concept > embraces a WHOLE group, not just odd members. The whole group is never > patterned. > > Let’s make this v. clear and inescapable – neither you nor anyone else > are going to present **one single concept** in the language that can be > defined as representing a pattern/patterned objects or actions/ patterned > subjects. > > Not one single concept. Not one example. > > There are probably at least a million concepts available to you – show one > that represents a pattern. > > Boris? Ben? Jim? Prisco? > > (If B & B can’t put up a single patterned concept, neither has any > business writing patternist manifestoes and books – and should junk them > forthwith). > > The patternist approach represents a complete and utter failure to > understand the nature of *conceptual thinking*/language – wh.; I shall > discurse upon another time. > > The fundamental nature of all concepts is that they are, by design, > *general* (“can’t be tied down to specifics”), *vague*, *open-ended*, and > *multiform* – the complete opposite of patterns and logic and maths, which > are *specific* (“can be tied down to specifics”), *precise*, > *closed-ended*, and *uniform*. > > If you can’t master conceptual thought – and no one has – you can’t do AGI > – and can’t survive in the real world. The real world is not patterned as a > whole – in any of its scenes. > > Conceptual thought is the diametrical *opposite* of > patterned/formulaic/algorithmic thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 5:53 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [agi] Pattern: definition & incremental syntax > > In a hopeless attempt to clear some of the confusion about patterns & > concepts, here is an excerpt from my recently edited part 4: > > A pattern is a set of matching inputs, the same concept as *fuzzy cluster*in > terms of unsupervised learning. > In my model, match is quantified by comparison as a measure of > compression, so a pattern is a compressed representation of multiple > inputs. Technically, every compared input forms a pattern, but only those > with an above-average compression count, - they are forwarded to higher > levels for extended search. Compression is adjusted for overlap in > aggregated match & miss representation: partial redundancy to previously > forwarded cross-compared inputs. This adjustment increases selectivity/ > sparseness of representation on a higher level. > > A more “exclusive” definition of a pattern is the recurrent match itself: > a subset of each input shared across a set thereof. This is actually a > higher-derivation pattern: an above-average match of a match. Just like > above-average match selects an input for a higher-level search, > above-average match of a match selects a common subset to a higher > integration vs. differentiation level within a pattern itself. That subset > also has a priority for extended search. The most basic hierarchical > sub-differentiation within a pattern is by match of a binary sign for > relative match, forming continuous segments of above | below average match > across input queue. > > Selective elevation increases both predictive value & potential syntactic > complexity of patterns: the number of different variables within it. That’s > because comparison of each input variable adds two new variable types: > relative match (m) & miss (d) relative to same-type variable of a template > pattern. Both are signed, as well as aggregated across multiple comparisons > within the length of a constant sign: L(m) & L(d). Relative match > determines comparison vs. aggregation for individual differences, forming a > queue of ds within positive L(m). New types of derivatives are also formed > by comparison across different types of S-T or derived coordinates. > > ..... > The patterns I described here are not qualitatively different from our > semantic concepts, which are either generalized empirical patterns (objects > & processes), or are strictly relational. There is no other way to define a > “concept“. Given sufficient computational resources & discoverable > mathematical shortcuts, search over incrementally complex syntax will > discover patterns / concepts on & beyond the level of natural language. > > > *http://www.cognitivealgorithm.info/2012/01/cognitive-algorithm.html*<http://www.cognitivealgorithm.info/2012/01/cognitive-algorithm.html> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > 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-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
