Russ, I am confused by your use of instances - and what you intend to be the opposite, e.g. particular examples vs generalisation.
Could you try expressing your point/question some other way? Preferably with an example or two :) ? On 16 November 2013 17:53, Russ Hurlbut <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > <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 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
