You should read up on Douglas Hofstadter's Copycat software, along with his other related projects. While it may be true that there are fundamentally different kinds of patterns that can't be generalized, some approaches to manipulating those patterns *can* be generalized.
And there's a key difference between an algorithm that produces all algorithms vs. a pattern that encompasses all patterns. Patterns are *representational*, not algorithmic. This means that they need to be complete to be useful, and it is permissible to leave some parts unrepresented or under-represented, unlike with algorithms. This is core to how the human mind processes things. It's why we can see the truth of the self-referential statements used in Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but no algorithm can *prove* their truth. We function on representational principles, not algorithmic ones, and the algorithms we implement merely allow us to extend those representations within certain subdomains of reliable deducibility. On Aug 23, 2012 2:56 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Ben: that's easy, these [[all patterns]] are all obviously susceptible to lossy compression using algorithms native to the brain... Total shameless waffle. You haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about, any more than when you claimed a program could produce all Da Vinci’s paintings. Explain how a single algorithm can produce the first three patterns AND then any example of a cellular automaton AND then any patterns which will be produced for your algorithm AFTER you have defined it. If you have a concept of “pattern”, that’s what you must be able to do – embrace not only known patterns but also all patterns yet to be created. How IOW are you proposing that a single algorithm can identify/produce *any* kind of elements in *any* kind of regular relationships? And while you’re at it, you might as well explain how a single algorithm can identify/produce **any and all** algorithms – because that is essentially the same claim you are making. If there’s a pattern for all patterns, there’s an algorithm for all algorithms. And there’s a formula for all formulae. Total cobblers. Reality: patterns, algorithms and formulae are specialist through and through, with no AGI powers of generalization whatsoever. From: Ben Goertzel Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:37 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Boris Explains His Theory If you want to put that mathematically, take a whole set of diverse patterns – Koch curve, Mandelbrot, herringbone, cellular automaton etc . etc. – and explain how the brain is able to abstract from *all of them together* and recognize them collectively as “patterns” (and not just as Koch curves/herringbones etc. etc). Where’s the pattern in a set of diverse patterns, B & B? And where’s the complexity, Jim? that's easy, these are all obviously susceptible to lossy compression using algorithms native to the brain... ben AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
