On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 11:05 PM Boris Kazachenko <cogno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There can be variance on any level of abstraction, be that between pixels or > between philosopical categories. And it could be in terms of any property / > attribute of compared elements / clusters / concepts: all these are derived > by lower-order comparisons.
I'm quite willing to believe there can be variance between anything at all. But can you give me a concrete example of a "variance" that you actually implement? One which can demonstrate its equivalence to my sense of "contradiction" as alternate orderings of a set. Or are you telling me you have conceptually accounted for my sense of contradiction, simply by saying the word "variance", which includes everything, but in practice do not implement it. If so, since saying the word "variance" will trivially solve any implementation, can you sketch an implementation for "variance" in my sense of "contradiction"? > None of that falls from the sky, other than pixels or equivalents: sensory > data at the limit of resolution. The rest is aquired, what we need to define > is the aquisition process itself: cross-comp (derivation) and clustering > (aggregation). You think "cross-comp (derivation) and clustering (aggregation)" will do it? Good. Yes. Please show me how to use "cross-comp (derivation) and clustering (aggregation)" to implement "variance" in my sense of "contradiction", as alternate orderings of sets. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T682a307a763c1ced-M261ada29388968d40ef34faf Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
