From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Fri Oct 29 2004 - 05:33:16 MDT
Sure, although Wolfram doesn't formulate pattern in terms of algorithmic
information theory. Philosophically, I don't disagree much with Wolfram,
though I think he overlooks issues of computational efficiency in a way that
harms his attempts to extend his thinking about physical systems into the
cognitive and biological domains.
see my review of his book at:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2002/WolframReview.htm
-- ben g
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org]On Behalf Of Mikko
> Särelä
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 3:45 AM
> To: sl4@sl4.org
> Subject: RE: Universal ethics
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > > If we take a pattern and look at it, no matter how long you look at
> > > it, it does nothing. No matter how fancy! Algorithms are the *do*
> > > but patterns are the results we are looking for. One is not useful
> > > without the other but there is an arrow of causality.
> >
> > If you look at the references I gave you before, you'll see that I
> > formally define a pattern as a kind of process -- i.e. a dynamical
> > entity. A pattern, in short, is a process that simplifies something.
>
> This one sounds very much like Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science'. Is it?
>
> --
> Mikko Särelä
> "I too don't really find Monty Python all that exciting, but don't
> tell anyone I said that." Anonymous
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT