Russ, Thanks for a v. thoughtful and carefully detailed reply. It is rare to see s.o. on this forum respond in a serious engaged way to arguments about the central nature of AGI and not just in a defensive, dismissive way.
I don't think you've grasped something though - wh. is my fault for not making clear. Patchwork and pattern are simply two opposite ways of arranging ANY AND ALL families of objects and actions in the world. Essentially anything and everything. Any and all objects physical or mental in the world can be patchwork and/ or patterned. A group of fields, streets, bedrooms, boardrooms, houses, skyscrapers, human/animal bodies/characters - i.e. any and all families of physical objects and fields of objects in the world... a group of representations, pictures, photographs, texts, stories, poems, articles, essays, equations i.e. any and all families of mental objects and representations of the world can be patterned and/or patchwork in nature. Ditto any courses of action by any agent[s] in the world can be patterned, algorithmic and rational or patchwork, improvised and creative. Going for a walk, having a conversation, writing a story or a scientific paper can be patterned and/or patchwork This is the way to approach the differences between patterns and patchworks, rationality and creativity,, algorithmically planned actions and improvised unplanned actions - to see them as alternative approaches to the same courses of action, the same families of objects - universally applicable, and universally opposite-and-complementary - and then it is easy to compare them. Don't, I suggest, get bogged down down in arguing about individual examples, look at how they both can be applied to the same things. . I am still exploring a systematic exposition of the creative patchwork/rational pattern divide, and will return to it. But it should be obvious that the idea that all fields, streets, bedrooms, houses etc and all human and animal activities are patterned - beautifully ordered and systematic, and always the same - is totally divorced from the real world - UNLESS you are living intellectually in a perfectly patterned toy blocks world and severely agoraphobic of the real world - which is exactly what AGI-ers are. On 17 November 2013 05:19, Russ Hurlbut <[email protected]> wrote: > tintner michael wrote: >> Here are patterns...and more complex patterns >> > > Based on the requested constraint to provide example images, and for sake > of establishing a common terminology, let one assume that each image > represents in instance of a artifact generated from a pattern. Thus, from > the two groups of Google images queries: > * patterns (Google image search: patterns) implies generated by algorithm > * complex patterns (Google image search: cellular automation) implies a > generative/evolutionary algorithm, such as cellular automaton (per examples > images), or something similar such as fractals > > Here are some patchworks EXCEPT - except that they are NOT all patchworks >> - interestingly some people use "patchworks" to refer to patterns. There is >> considerable confusion in our language use re these terms. >> > > Ah, there's the rub. The mainstream use of the word "patchwork", supported > by the overwhelming selection of images that relate to quilting, typically > implies algorithm generated artifacts. Based on input from a subject matter > expert, the prototypical quilt is composed of square blocks, which in turn > are assembled from piecing. Then quilting (which refers only to the > stitching which holds the front, back, and binding together) is applied by > a machine running a computer program. However, there are outlier exemplars > that use appliqué, paper piecing, hand quilting, free-motion quilting and > so forth that qualify as valid patchworks for purposes here, as you pointed > out. > > >> So here are some specific patchworks: >> > > Isn't it a bit ironic that the first image you selected as specific a > patchwork is constructed from a "pattern" (carolina patchworks mrs. roy g. > biv quilt pattern)? The second image (of a carpet) is likely similarly > produced. Nevertheless, the image of the autumn leaf covered ground > adequately conveys the gist (which reminds one of some of your previous > examples of pebbles, etc). > >> >> Google figurative logos form collections of patchworks: >> > > This is an interesting choice for a patchwork collection example. The > third image (of the Dali themed logo) is rather appropriate since each is > an example of the paranoiac-critical method which Dali made famous ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoiac-critical_method ). The question is > whether or not that is intentional. The assumption here is that an image > search for "alphabet photos in nature" or "alphabet photos in architecture" > will produce a similar collection of patchwork instance candidates. > > In spite of your efforts here, there is not much that this contributor can > add to further the pattern/patchwork debate. However, you have ameliorated > semantic differences to some degree. And on that basis, perhaps the best > contribution to be made at this juncture is to point out similar research > efforts in the cognitive science community that perhaps share your > concerns. You are likely not alone in your views. The first one in > particular lends itself to your "GO TO THE KITCHEN" example: > > The minimalist grammar of action ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223786/ ) > >> The repertoire of human actions is infinite, starting from the simplest >> intentional body movements such as stretching a leg to creative dancing >> routines, to interaction with tools and objects such as grasping a knife, >> to even more complex series of actions that formulate events, such as >> preparing a salad or cleaning the house. Uncovering the structure of action >> has been a quest in many disciplines, including cognitive science and >> artificial intelligence. > > > Lexical knowledge without a lexicon? ( > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209550/ ) > >> All of this has led to a sea change, resulting in the view of the mental >> lexicon as a data structure of tremendous richness and detail. And this, I >> want to propose, should begin to raise some worries. How much detail ought >> to go in the lexicon? Is there a principled way to adjudicate between >> information that belongs in the lexicon and information that belongs >> elsewhere? > > > > *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
