I am talking about a program that can create patterns. Jim Bromer On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote:
> Jim, > > If you can’t deal in actual examples, and can only make with wordplay, > discussion is pointless. > > Find an actual example of a pattern-generating algorithm, and you will > find it is extremely limited – and then you will also be able to see the > difference from patchworks. > > Every member of a collection of patchworks is a new configuration of new > shapes, and yet every one, looked at overall [but not at a local level] > bears some family resemblance to the others. At one extreme, a collection > of patchworks may have ZERO elements/shapes in common. Look at a collection > of figurative Google logos, and there will be literally zero shapes in > common. > > There are NO new shapes OTOH in a set of variations on a given pattern., > All variations share the SAME basic set of shapes, and configurations of > shapes . > > Decimal calculations – 22*33, 44*51 etc - all adhere to the same basic > pattern, and set of shapes/numerals. > > If you introduce one new shape into a pattern, you BREAK THE PATTERN – > screw up the maths/logic/algo. > > If you introduced one arbitrary new shape into the present decimal > system, you would screw the system up. > > If you think there are patterns that introduce new shapes/elements, show > us such a pattern example and its variations. > > You guys really are talking nonsense. > > Examples, examples. Have you never heard of them, Jim? > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2012 1:50 AM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Randomness: Mathematics as Perceptual Bias > > Mike, > If I assume that you are making sense then your entire two year long > argument is based solely on a difference of opinion about what the term > pattern means in computer science. Since you are not a computer programmer > or a computer technician it is very unlikely that you know what the term > means and the rest of the agiers (as you call us/them) don't. > When we talk about patterns we are including the new patterns that can > be created and about hidden patterns that can be abstracted. Since you have > never mentioned hidden patterns that can be abstracted it is a pretty good > guess that your reliance on your use of the term "patchworks" is more naive > than the concepts that we are thinking about. Furthermore, you have > repeatedly used the term "element" > in a relativistic way so again, since you have never acknowledged that you > do so it would seem that you are the one who is struggling to come to grips > with the fact that this is not something that we have never thought about. > Arguing with you guys always ends up providing me with some insight that > I had never quite possessed before. But that is not because I am catching > up to you but because when we are talking about problems that are extremely > complex (as in complexity) the relativistic problems have a funny way of > becoming relevant all over again. So if there is no such thing as a true > 'element' then what is the difference between a pattern and a feature. What > is different between an element and a patchwork to use your term? What is > the difference between a patchwork and a pattern? A patchwork-pattern can > an element to some more complicated patchwork-pattern. And since we can > abstract relations that cannot be immediately sensed in a patchwork-pattern > we can find novel elements that are less complicated then the > patchwork-pattern that is under consideration. > Jim Bromer > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jim, >> You’re doing it again – arguing logically as opposed to scientifically >> – and seem deeply confused about the difference. Hence: >> “if I could write a program that did not react to Input but which >> created an endless variety of patterns then would you (Mike) accept that it >> verified the idea that rational computational methods had the *POTENTIAL* >> to be intelligent” >> That’s not evidence, Jim, as you proceed to argue. That’s a hypothesis >> about a fictional program of your invention. “Evidence “ can only be >> derived from ****ACTUAL*** programs. I told you: you’re lost in logical >> definitions. The difference between your fictional hypotheses about what >> programs **may** be able to do, and what programs **actually** do, escapes >> you – and not just this time, but always, as far as I know you. >> And so you get lost in your imaginings – here, for example, you posit a >> program that can produce “an endless variety of patterns” – and proceed to >> take that as a given, a virtual fact of life. >> There is no such program (or algorithm), and there is no reason >> whatsoever to think that an algo can create such an endless variety. >> An algo can be designed to produce "a “very large variety” of patterns >> (numerically large), just as a chess program can produce a very large >> number of chess games – but only a very limited (not “endless”) range of >> patterns, with a very limited range of elements. >> You would have an AGI if your program (and it would have to be >> non-algorithmic) could endlessly create new **kinds** of patterns with new >> elements – and formally that would be equivalent to endlessly creating new >> patchworks – because, just a tad paradoxically, a new pattern – a new kind >> of Escher, say – Is in a sense a new patchwork when considered alongside >> previous kinds of patterns. It breaks the principles of previous patterns – >> breaks the pattern in a sense. When s.o. introduced random numerical >> variations into patterns, as in cellular automata, they were introducing a >> new kind of pattern with a new element. >> The potentially infinite class of patterns, BTW, – taken as a whole – >> constitutes a patchwork and not a patterned affair. There is no common >> pattern to the class of patterns. People can and do keep inventing new >> kinds and principles of pattern. >> So we add a new injunction to you: “stick to EVIDENCE of actual >> programs doing actual things” - and not your fictional programs doing >> fictional things. >> > *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/303/10561250-164650b2> | > 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
