> On Wednesday, October 8, 1997 1:49 AM, Robin Faichney
> [SMTP:r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk] wrote:
> > Your question *might* make sense if I had been talking about
> > *absolutely* all patterns, but in fact it was all "these patterns
> > people see". Say two people look at a photograph of a cloud,
> > and one sees a similarity to a sheep, while the other is
> > reminded of the Mandelbrot set. A pattern-matching algorithm,
> > set up to compare scanned-in photos of the cloud and of a
> > sheep in the appropriate position WRIT viewpoint, with the
> > M set, will find and match these patterns, because all are
> > really there.
>
> No, your program will find and match those patterns because you have
> programmed it to do so. Hofstadter has done much research on patterns. Have
> you read his latest "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies"? It's
> interesting. I'd say the fact that patterns AREN'T inherent in reality is
> the reason such programming is so difficult.
>
> Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
> Author, VIRUS OF THE MIND: The New Science of the Meme
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
> Visit Meme Central: http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make one molecule of water. Is
this an example of one of those patterns which don't exist?
The Nateman