p.s. the "patterns" of evolution you linked to are no such thing - they are more like "general ideas" or "themes"/"principles" of evolution.
They are in no way comparable to the extensive "patterns in nature" studied by endless books in recent years, such as the patterns of shells, or ferns, which are real patterns. On 16 November 2013 18:34, tintner michael <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
