I guess Mike was saying that the variety of patterns that he provided a link to were, "unlike natural evolution, in which new elements, like eyes, limbs, opposable thumbs, voiceboxes, etc emerge..."
But again, he is declaring that complex arrangements of cells are "elements" so even if I misunderstood how he was using the references to the images of patterns, I am still left with sense that he is not basing his argument on the idea that there are an infinite number of 'elements' but on the idea that an infinite number of complexes can emerge. No one is saying that a computer can truly represent an infinite variety of anything, no more than we are we saying that a single computer can know everything. No human being knows everything that human beings have ever known. The idea is that we are arguing is that computers have a potential to 'represent' an astounding variety of things and relations. Jim Bromer On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
