Mike, It looks to me that you have inherited the genes of a strong British empiricist somewhere, which would make sense if since it looks like you are in the UK. It seems like you reject any universal rules, formulas, forms, or what you have beyond whatever object you have under consideration.
Surely you'd have to concede that there are some rules which persist over time and are static? Mike A On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > > T:I think you need to go to higher math classes...What about differential > geometry, curves, surfaces, parametric curves, topology, graph-theory. Any > “geometrical” shape can be represented by mathematics, divided eventually in > those “regular forms > > How many bloody times are you guys going to make the same mistake over and > over? It seems to be an almost universal error here. > > Maths is formulaic – it seeks to produce the formulae for SETS of abstract > forms. But it can only produce formulae for sets of REGULAR forms. > > Yes, maths can be used to represent/analyse any INDIVIDUAL form, – incl. any > individual IRREGULAR form. It can analyse any individual blob or chunk > whatsoever. But that same method of analysis cannot be used for ANOTHER > irregular form – you’ll have to start all over again with a fresh analysis > and a fresh method.. > > Maths cannot produce a formula for a SET of irregular forms – for more than > just one - for a set of blobs, or waterdrops, or cells, or rocks or trees. > > Irregular forms are not formulaic. The reason is that there are no common > elements/subforms from which you could derive a formula. Irregular forms > don’t have common ingredients. Sets of regular forms can be divided into > common regular parts, sets of irregular forms can’t. > > As a result, mathematics is incapable of formulaically treating the ENTIRE > NATURAL WORLD – rocks, clouds, trees, rivers, cells, islands et al.* It’s v. > useful for treating artificial specially-made-to-regular forms like those of > technology. It’s not useful for understanding how natural irregular forms are > produced. > > God-the-anatomist is NOT a mathematician – “He” works with irregular cell > blobs not regular Lego bricks. Unlike scientists and AI-ers, he is an > individualist who wants every separate thing in the world to have its own > individual, different identity – as well as being similar to other things. > This is a fundamental dimension of the universe which both AI-ers and > scientists have extreme difficulty understanding, because their fields are > generalist, not individualist, formulaic not portraitist. > > Maths can represent any INDIVIDUAL rock form. It cannot produce a math > formula for a SET of rock forms – for rock forms generally. > > Similarly it cannot produce a formula for the abstract arts which treat > irregular forms – for the paintings of Miro or Rothko, or Jackson Pollock, > which are full of new, irregular forms. Ben’s suggestion that there could be > a formula/algorithm which generated the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci is a > mathematical impossibility. > > Similarly maths cannot produce a formula for the vast menagerie of irregular > abstract forms – from irregular blobby forms to irregular chunky forms. > > The menagerie of abstract and natural forms that you will find in the arts, > both abstract and naturalistic, is far vaster than any you will find in > geometry.- which seeks only to find the basic building blocks of abstract > forms. > > Until you get this distinction into your head – maths CAN deal with > INDIVIDUAL irregular forms, but CAN’T deal with SETS OR FAMILIES of irregular > forms, you are going to have a major problem understanding AGI – in fact be > *incapable* of understanding AGI. > > The central task for AGI is to visually recognize/ conceptualise/ generate > FAMILES and GROUPS of IRREGULAR FORMS, not just indiividual ones.. > > This is what defeats all attempts to visually object recognize and > conceptualise. Our computers cannot recognize human faces and bodies because > they are so irregular. Nor can they produce any conceptual prototypes for > such forms. > > All kinds of people are continuing to pursue doomed mathematical approaches > to these problems – all because they can’t understand the distinction between > maths’ applicability/inapplicability to individual irregular forms vs > groups/families of irregular forms. > > Stop and think about it – it’s possibly the most important thing in AGI. > > *P.S. You can find odd beautifully patterned natural objects – a fern, say – > but those patterns are relatively rare – and look at a set of them – a set of > ferns – and you’ll find that they don’t share precisely the same patterning – > there are irregularities and imperfections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
