On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Boris Kazachenko <[email protected]>wrote:
> ** > Would someone please ban this spambot? > > > *From:* Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 2:01 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Pattern: definition & incremental syntax > > 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/303/18407320-d9907b69> | > 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/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
