1
   

Re: Pattern Emergance

 
 
ogden
 
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2007 06:07 pm
Has anyone heard anything about a science called pattern emergance?

I think it started in the seventies with computer programers. They found that writing rulles into code for things like chess men or checker pieces sometimes resulted in unique (unexpected) patterns.

Recently I heard someone explain it using a school of fish analogy: the fish are all autonimously responding to a set of rulles or ingrained behaviors or responses to common stimuli. something tells them to stay together or to all turn at the same instance. the result is a school of fish.

Yes im fishing for a reply:)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 859 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
ogden
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 08:57 pm
@ogden,
The main goal of my previous post concerning pattern emergance is to try and understand if there is any thing new under the sun concerning human behavior paterns, or are we at an impass in our development?

Homosapien (thinking man) is fundimentally no different than any other spicies on the planet. We use our abilities to servive and overcome selection pressure and procreate. Our main ability just hapens to be our cognitive ability. As our knowledge of the matirial world expands, and the way we manipulate it develops, it aprears as if we are changing but we are not fundimentally changing the rules that are the inescapable hardwireing that rules our behavior. These patterns emerge from the very core of us (genetic).

Examples of patterns would be our primal instincts such as; kill for food, sex, and to think, (mostly about food and sex:p ), to comunicate and form groups (socialize), to answer the unanswerable questions that plauge our cognitive process, and to conquer our environment and eachother. Many of our behavior patterns are present in our primate cousins, so what makes us so special?

When we can see that our actions are detrimental but have no will to change? (see thread on free will). What will it take to change? has'nt every generation selected for the attributes we now have? Drastic change in the selection pressure may be the only way for us to change.

You may well argue that by my preposition that we are not changing, nor have we changed, that I am saying we sprang up as we are. I would not want to be missunderstood as a creationist supporter, I mearly mean that the fundimental rules that govern us have not changed and therefore our behavior has not changed.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2008 07:22 pm
@ogden,
Emergence is an interesting field. You are right about schools of fish - they function as they do, often in complex ways, on very basic rules. I have also read of arguments that free actions are emergent.

As for your assessment of humans, I think I see where you are going, and disagree to an extent. You say the fundamental rules regarding our behavior has not changed, and you are right, depending on what you are talking about. Subatomic particles work the same way. But this is true of everything else in the universe. Has nothing in the universe changed?

Fundamentally, we are no different than anything else in the universe. But the differences we do share exist and have changed, and continue to change constantly.
ogden
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 04:26 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Emergence is an interesting field. You are right about schools of fish - they function as they do, often in complex ways, on very basic rules. I have also read of arguments that free actions are emergent.

As for your assessment of humans, I think I see where you are going, and disagree to an extent. You say the fundamental rules regarding our behavior has not changed, and you are right, depending on what you are talking about. Subatomic particles work the same way. But this is true of everything else in the universe. Has nothing in the universe changed?

Fundamentally, we are no different than anything else in the universe. But the differences we do share exist and have changed, and continue to change constantly.


Thank you for your post. I was exploring an idea and was not at all confident in it's coherance, your reply gives it hope:D.

I like your example of subatomic particles, and your question "has nothing changed?"

When humans first produced iron tools you can't really say that the elements that made up the iron had changed can you? The elements were the same, they were just assembled differently. So subtatnially it was the same stuff formed for a new purpose. Nothing is really new,is it? Closed system. I was wondering if human behavior or the rules that form them (whatever they are) might be examined in this same reduction.

Dominating and manipulating our phisycal world for our benifit is not new. What that domination and panipulation might be new but not the behavior. Being that our main attribute is cognative ability; I dont think thinking is new:eek:.

If then thre is no new matter in the universe,then only relational aspect of physicality, and subjective understanding of it can be new. (is that statement a tautology, I hope not?) For example; if the Hedron colider somehow created a condition that allowed mater to be in a new state of being, then that would be a new relational state, since non of the mater involved was new, and if scientist discovered somethng new about this relationship that would be our understanding is new.

Back to the topic at hand; human behavior, and if emergant patterns of it can reveal something about us. I posit that we are under the mpression that we are somehow above the animals, when in fact we can not escape our inate tendancies; and therefore, are no better than they. I fear only evolution, driven by selection pressure, can truly alter us. I say I fear because I observe the world being consumed and poluted by us and though we are aware of it, we seem unable to alter our behavior. For us to transcend our tendancies and control our behavior is what would set us appart.

I see this heading for a paradox: If we can rise above our nature, then it was in our nature to rise above. ha ha ha:)
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 01:14 pm
@ogden,
Quote:
When humans first produced iron tools you can't really say that the elements that made up the iron had changed can you?


What do we mean by change? Ore had to be mined. Then the metal must be heated. Then the structure changed to suit the needs of man.

Quote:
The elements were the same, they were just assembled differently.


So, reality changed, but the elements underwent no change... hmm, I suppose, if reality and those elements are two different things.

Quote:
Being that our main attribute is cognative ability; I dont think thinking is new


New to what? If humans have not always existed, as they are the only example of cognition (with the ability to reason, anyway), then such cognition must be new as compared to something.

Quote:
If then thre is no new matter in the universe,then only relational aspect of physicality, and subjective understanding of it can be new. (is that statement a tautology, I hope not?)


I'm not sure. Typos and grammar make me hesitant to say what it is. I'm always flying through as I type, trying to get all the information from my head onto the page; the crazy things I've come up with from typos!

Quote:
For example; if the Hedron colider somehow created a condition that allowed mater to be in a new state of being, then that would be a new relational state, since non of the mater involved was new, and if scientist discovered somethng new about this relationship that would be our understanding is new.


What is a "new state of being"? I must admit a lack of familiarity with the Hedron colider, but, it seems any change would be a change in the total state of being. Even if this change is just motion in relation to other particles.

Quote:
I posit that we are under the mpression that we are somehow above the animals, when in fact we can not escape our inate tendancies; and therefore, are no better than they.


First order desires are what we share with animals - like the urge to eat, find shelter, for water, ect. Second order desires seem unique to man - that is, while we and animals might both desire food, our cognitive process might go further and say "I would like some curry today" - you'll desire food, but you'll also have another desire about that first order desire.
That man can move beyond first order desires seems to defend the notion that we are "somehow above animals" even if to a very limited extent.

Most of this was just food for thought. I'm not trying to argue anything in particular. That might come in later, but now I'm just thinking out loud. You've definately brought up alot to think about! Thank you.
ogden
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 09:07 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Thank you Didymos, I do enjoy hearing you think outloud, and I welcom you challenging any statement I make, because I hope to abandon thoughts I cannot defend:p. As for my typos and spelling, I am sorry. I don't know how to spell check yet. Pointers on spell check and how to multi quote would be great.

I was never exposed to that first order desire stuff and I have been searching for ways to differentiate humans from animals, so I will look into that some more. I'll look online.

My goal was to question "what is new under the sun" hoping that the answer might reveal if there is really any behavior humans engage in that is new. To clarify the statement I tried to make previously, I'll say that the only thing new is:

1) New physical form. The universe is a closed system and while none of the matter in it can be added to, or removed, the only physical change then must be how the matter interacts (relational). Therefore, making an iron axe is no different than making a jack hammer (toolmaking). Spearing an enimey no different than launching an ICBM (waring). So while we manipulate the physical world into new forms, only the form is new, not its element and not our act of forming it.
[INDENT] a) I then attempted to add an exception to the no new matter statement by mentioning the Hadron Collider (not Hedron). This collider is a 17 mile diamiter underground ring being built in France and Switzerland. Super colliders, as they are called, use huge magnets to smash apart atomic particles and study the results (quarks). It will begin operation in Feb. 08 and they are hoping to find/produce a type of matter (higs boson) that only existed (in theory) for a nanosecond after the big bang. New matter?
[/INDENT]2) New understanding. As you pointed out in your post, human cognition was new when we began, however, my concern here is new human behavior; so while the ideas and understanding we have may be new, the human thought as an action/function is not new. (I'm not sure if it is correct to objectify human thought in this way?)

I've dug a big hole for myself,and now you can bury me in it;).
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 09:17 pm
@ogden,
Quote:
that the answer might reveal if there is really any behavior humans engage in that is new.


If the environment changes, doesn't the behavior?

Quote:
Therefore, making an iron axe is no different than making a jack hammer (toolmaking).


If toolmaking is different than making, why are axe making and jack hammer making not different from one another?

Quote:
Spearing an enimey no different than launching an ICBM (waring).


Certainly these activities are similar, they are violent. But to say they are no different seems far fetched. You may spear an enemy and kill him, or maybe only wound him. An ICBM could kill millions. That seems like a difference to me.

Quote:
2) New understanding. As you pointed out in your post, human cognition was new when we began, however, my concern here is new human behavior; so while the ideas and understanding we have may be new, the human thought as an action/function is not new. (I'm not sure if it is correct to objectify human thought in this way?)


So you are saying the mechanism of thought has not changed? If this is the case, I'm not sure how it is anything negative, or worth worrying over. As long as we can have new thoughts and ideas, and can continue to refine our understanding, I think we'll be fine.

Quote:
I've dug a big hole for myself,and now you can bury me in it.


Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it has been interesting.
ogden
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 09:33 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Correct as usual Didymos. Indeed making is making, no mater what you are making, and making an ax is different than making a bomb because you are making things that can be differentiated. (wheew, sometimes my thoughts are so messy!)

I hade no knowledge of higher order perception and thought theories; it has helped me differentiate between animals and ourselves.

If behaviors were reduced to thier most basic level, what would those behaviors be? If it is true that all behavior must originates in thought, what is the most basic thought? Would'nt realizaton of self (or consciousness) be progenitor to all thought? Secondly, and perhaps instantaniously with self, would follow realizing others, because self is a distinction/seperation from totality. This consciousness is not entirely abstract, but is complimented by the senses. Thees would be first order thoughts; I am hungery, and then the behavior would result in eating. If you felt hot you might seek the comfort of shade, or if cold, you would seek shelter or clothing. So far all of this is first order?

So higher level higher order thought and perception is first ordr pluss something more, a higher mental state, it is being aware of thought. Thought and perception that make an "it is like" comparison. If I was hungery for meat would'nt this specific desire stem from my memory? How can you crave what you have not experienced? So too thinking about your own awareness (self reference) is a higher mental state, higher order thought.

I have to sleep now so I'll have to continue this thinking out loud later. Maybe i'll figure out how I can apply it to the topic of this thread:p.

later
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Re: Pattern Emergance
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/19/2019 at 01:34:42