On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> A specific pattern – Mandelbrot, Fourier transform, cellular automaton no. > 30 etc.. specific. > Examples are specific, Aaron, not general. > And the “pattern of neuronal firings in your brain” is a fictional product > of your imagination. > Specifics. Evidence. e.g. > https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site= > imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1340&bih=690&q=patterns&oq= > patterns&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1679.2746.0.3037.8.7.0.1.1.0. > 159.516.5j2.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.hHfKyrSHq4M > And here are “evolving patterns”, except that they don’t truly evolve with > new elements – they aren’t truly “emergent” > > Mike's idea of a "patchwork" is just a fictional product of his imagination, if that is the attitude that he wants to take. And Mike's reference of the patterns in the images he provides the links to are truly formed from non changing elements of pixels of computer imagery. If his argument can be exemplified by the seemingly infinite variety of different patterns that can be found by searching on Google then that proves that the unchanging elements of pixlation can indeed represent the variety of different kinds of patterns that Mike is talking about. This seems like a contradiction of his basic argument since the question seems to hinge on whether computers can potentially -represent- a massive variety of patterns. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
