Aarron/MT: Patterns cannot change or evolve in any way.

That's a rather bizarre claim to make

If it’s so bizarre, you’ll have no problem giving us a single example of a 
pattern that does change and evolve – a single logicomathematical/ 
computational pattern. And since patterns are formulaic/algorithmic, you might 
add a single formula/algorithm that evolves.

P.S. GA’s do not add new elements or truly evolve  – as we’ve discussed 
repeatedly – they only mix and remix the same old elements. (And are there any 
un-human-assisted GA’s, without humans intervening to select from different 
generations – in which case they don’t even qualify as  patterns.)

.  


From: Aaron Hosford 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:11 PM
To: AGI 
Subject: Re: [agi] Randomness: Mathematics as Perceptual Bias

  Patterns cannot change or evolve in any way.

That's a rather bizarre claim to make. Any notion you may have of a pattern 
necessarily being unchanging is something restricted to your own personal 
definition of the term, and doesn't intrude into mine. The ability of a pattern 
to change over time depends on the system in which it is embedded. If the 
system makes room for patterns to change, then they can change. You apparently 
have in mind some sort of fragile, restricted system where nothing ever 
changes. An Evolutionary or Genetic Algorithm is a good example of a case where 
patterns are free to change. (Actually, Genetic Programming in particular is a 
much better example, since some GA encodings can be rather stiff and 
restricted.) There are plenty of other algorithms out there designed for 
dealing with shifting, changing patterns.

  New elements, fundamental change, evolution, creativity – AGI – and the real 
world – have bugger all (or v. little)  to do with patterns. And this, to 
repeat, is demonstrable and incontrovertible.


Evolution is itself a pattern (of behavior). It can be simulated on a machine 
(by copying that pattern) and then used to generate creativity just as it does 
in the real world. What you claim is demonstrable and incontrovertible has not 
been demonstrated and is therefore being controverted. If you have a 
demonstration, I'm still waiting for it. The things you keep saying patterns 
can't do (or have nothing to do with) are things that don't apply to my 
definition of pattern. What is your definition of pattern that you make such 
outlandish claims about them?

pat·tern   [pat-ern; Brit. pat-n]  Show IPA
noun 
1. 
a decorative design, as for wallpaper, china, or textile fabrics,etc.
2. 
decoration or ornament having such a design.
3. 
a natural or chance marking, configuration, or design: patterns of frost on the 
window.
4. 
a distinctive style, model, or form: a new pattern of army helmet.
5. 
a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or 
characteristic arrangement: the behavior patterns of teenagers.

The definition I'm using is a blend of 3, 4, and 5 above. The key words to me 
are "chance...configuration", "style", and "arrangement". Note there is no 
mention of being unable to change over time under any of them. The closest any 
of them comes is #5, which describes it as "consistent or characteristic", but 
this is not the same as saying "permanent or unchanging".





On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote:

  I never said patterns are repeated. Patterns can be v. complicated but they 
are ultimately sickmaking because all variations on a given pattern have the 
same elements in the same structural relationships – and that includes cellular 
automata where there is random variation in the elements. Patterns thus get 
boring (except to mathematicians).  Every patchwork in a given collection is 
new and different while still similar, because it has, by definition, new 
elements – and satisfies our need for newness and not-to-be-bored by the same 
old patterns. 

  Ultimately any patchwork can be evolved by steps into any form, picture or 
scene *WHATSOEVER*. A patchwork dress of abstract shapes can be evolved into a 
sea of human faces or a nuclear explosion or a battlescene – or anything. 
Patterns cannot change or evolve in any way. Patchworks mirror the real world. 
Your local street can and will evolve into a very different form over 
sufficient time. All forms and scenes in the real world evolve over time. And 
no one street is exactly like any other right now – at a given point in time. 
Every street can be regarded as an “evolution” of every other street. 

  New elements, fundamental change, evolution, creativity – AGI – and the real 
world – have bugger all (or v. little)  to do with patterns. And this, to 
repeat, is demonstrable and incontrovertible.

  From: Aaron Hosford 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:03 PM
  To: AGI 
  Subject: Re: [agi] Randomness: Mathematics as Perceptual Bias

  I didn't say anything at all about repeated patterns. There are other types 
of patterns besides repetition. Clearly a sentence like, "My dog ate my 
homework," or the equivalent predicate in logic, doesn't indicate a repeating 
pattern. (Unless, of course, the excuse gets used repeatedly.) And yet this is 
a pattern. I would go so far as to say, it's a pattern made up of a "patchwork" 
of relationships between several objects and events. 




  On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> 
wrote:

    Patterns exist -  but they are islands in the patchwork seas of the real 
world. The brain is primarily designed to make sense of patchwork scenes and 
patchwork objects  - and if you look too long at a heavily patterned scene, 
like a specially designed patterned room, you get sick – it ain’t natural.  The 
patchwork nature of real world scenes is obvious and incontrovertible.
    From: Aaron Hosford 
    Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:43 PM
    To: AGI 
    Subject: Re: [agi] Randomness: Mathematics as Perceptual Bias

    Summaries of perceptual information. These are the elusive "patterns" you 
say don't exist. 



    On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> 
wrote:

      Aaron: Todor's point was simply that logic (and language in general) 
merely express summaries

      .... summaries of what? Would you care to expand?
            AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  


          AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription   

          AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  


        AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription   

        AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription  


      AGI | Archives  | Modify Your Subscription   



-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to