Tinter: > It is commonplace for an ordinary person to look at those mag. covers and > say they "share/follow a pattern". (Note these covers are exceptions - most > patchworks in any collection are very different from each other). > ... > The argument simply cannot be made that patterns can generate patchworks. > They are OPPOSITES. A pattern can only have ONE part/shape/colour at any > given point. It is set form. A patchwork can have INFINITE > parts/shapes.colours at any given point. It is FREE form. One is always the > same. One is always different.One is rational and routine, the other is > creative and always out-of-the-routine. Patterns are totally non-generative > - totally non-related to AGI, which is about how to deal with and produce > new objects, new forms, new scenes - how to deal with a new face, scene, > text, argument. ... how to deal not with a neatly patterned, toy blocks > world, but a messy patchwork real world.Patchworks are continually and > infinitely generative, like the real, everchanging, ever-evolvable world. >
Thank you for your clarifications - and as always, your links to examples are appreciated. It appears that a key distinction that you are making is that of "generative versus non-generative". To at least this reader, the remaining differences appear to involve semantics. Perhaps introducing a new term into the conversation - that of "instance" - may help to clarify one's understanding. From the snippets above, it may appear to some that "patchwork" and "pattern" have been overloaded with multiple contexts. For "instances": "Most patchwork *instances* in any collection are very different from each other" "A pattern *instance *can only have ONE part/shape/colour at any given point" For the [non-instance | mental construct | general concept | abstract notion | whatever you want to call it]: "patterns can (not) generate patchwork (*instances*)...patterns are totally non-generative" "Patchworks are continually and infinitely generative, like the real, everchanging, ever-evolvable world." Using "pattern" in the non-instance context, one could argue that evolution is a pattern - which can even have meta-patterns (e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_evolution ). You obviously disagree, so there is no point in further debate on this point. However, perhaps you can elucidate further the non-instance context of "patchwork", if in fact you agree there is a distinction and assuming each of the links provided are examples of patchwork *instances*. It is not apparent from you discourse what the non-instance context of "patchwork" would constitute. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
