Remember that Eliezer is using "holonic" to describe *conflict resolution* in the interpretation process. The reason it fits Koestler's usage is that it uses *both* information about the parts that make up a possible entity and the larger entities it might be part of.
Suppose we see the sentence "The cut sut on the mut", written in longhand. We would rapidly come to understand that the writer didn't close his "a"s and that the sentence had to do with domestic felines. An essential part of this process would be resolving the conflict between the different possible interpretations of the letters and the words. "Holonic" neatly captures this process by emphasizing that the entities being disambiguated are both made up of parts and are themselves parts of larger entities. Is that a fair exegesis, Eliezer? Josh On Wednesday 17 October 2007 06:43:52 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote: > JOSH, > > I KNEW SERRES SYSTEM WAS ONLY FEED FORWARD, AND ONLY DEALS WITH CERTAIN > ASPECTS OF VISION, BUT I THINK IT HAS AMAZINGLY IMPRESSIVE PERFORMANCE FOR > SUCH A RELATIVELY SIMPLE SYSTEM, AND A LOT OF IT IS AUTOMATICALLY LEARNED. > > IS IT HOLONIC? > > IT DEFINITELY DOESNT JUST DIVIDE VISUAL STATE SPACE UP INTO THE > EQUIVALENT OF THE BLINDLY SELECTED SUBSPACES. IT LEARNS PATTERNS, AND > PATTERNS OF PATTERNS, AND GENERALIZATIONS OF PATTERNS. AND WHAT IT > LEARNS, ARE, AS I REMEMBER IT, PATTERNS THAT SOMEHOW USEFULLY DIVIDE > VISUAL EXPERIENCE AT THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY REPRESENTED BY THAT LEVEL OF > PATTERN. SO THE PATTERNS BEGIN TO REPRESENT USEFUL SHAPES, AND PATTERNS > OF SUCH SHAPES. > > SO I THINK IT IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO DIVIDING UP A BODY INTO UNITS BASED > ON THE COHERENT ROLES THEY PLAY IN A HIERARCHY OF SUCH PATTERNS, RATHER > THAN JUST SOME ARBITRARY PATTERN THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING > ABOVE OR BELOW IT. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=54903061-483077
