FOTD -- November 14, 2006 (Rating 7) Fractal visionaries and enthusiasts: Today's image is a blow-up of a tiny hole that was hidden nearly invisibly in yesterday's image. In my opinion, the picture is good enough to deserve a rating, so after much consideration I decided to give it a rating of 7. I reused the color palette that worked so well in yesterday's image. After more consideration I named the image "Jewel in the Night". There is something somber yet jewel-like about it. And unlike the midget in yesterday's haphazard image, the midget in today's image is surrounded by its proper 2-4-8... series of fractal elements. Unfortunately, though the image is worthwhile, it is unusually slow, taking almost 1-1/4 hours to complete on my machine. This is a bit too much time to ask anyone to spend on a fractal, but there is a way out of the quardary. I have sent the GIF file of the finished image on ahead to Paul at the FOTD web site, where it will soon be posted, ready for quick and easy viewing. The FOTD web site may be accessed at: <http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/FotD/FotD.html> The rain moved out but the clouds hung on here at New Fractal Central on Monday, while the temperature of 50F 10C gave an unpleasant clammy feeling to the air. The fractal cats did not worry about the weather however. They were still busy staking claims to the new arrangement of bookshelves in the hallway. My day was slow, but I am ready to start getting around with a walking stick instead of a walker, and this will make everyday things far easier to accomplish. The next FOTD fractal will be accomplished in around 24 hours. Until then, take care, and will artificial-intelligence computers ever be able to dream while they sleep? If they do dream, how will we verify it? Jim Muth jamth@mindspring.com jimmuth@aol.com START PARAMETER FILE======================================= Jewel_in_the_Night { ; time=1:13:57.39--SF5 on a P200 reset=2004 type=formula formulafile=allinone.frm formulaname=MandelbrotMix4 function=ident passes=1 center-mag=+0.94573709735677560/+0.000665783710186\ 24/7.10689e+010/1/7.49708298677531548/0.0037126581\ 7762087696 params=1/3.1/-1/5.9/0/0 float=y maxiter=12000 inside=0 periodicity=10 colors=000TTQUQPUOOUMNVJLVHKVFJVDIYJG_PFbVEd`DffCe\ eEedGecIecKebMeaOeaQe`Se_UeZWeZYeY_eXaeXceWeeVgeUi\ eUkeTmeSoeSqeRseQueQvfPtgPrgPphOniOliOkeQmaRoZSqVT\ sSUuPWtMXtJZtH_sE`sBbs9cr6er3fr1gr1V79O9HHBPBCPCBP\ CBPCBPDAPDAPDAPDAh_ieYfbWc_U`YSYVQVSOTQMQNLNKJKIHH\ FFFCDCAB97964732616A2AE2EI2IM2MQ2QU2UY2Ya2XaFXaSXa\ dXapYemZij_mgaofcpeeqegrdjsdltdnucpvcrwctxevvhxqmy\ mrzjvzfzz`zzXzzQzwPwsOspNonMkkLgiKdfJ`dIXaHU_GQXFM\ VFJSHKPJLMLMKNNHPOERPBTQ9VR6XS3ZT1_T9VMGQFNL9VVHbc\ PjlXrucqq`pnZokXnhVmeTlbRl_PkXNjULiRIhOGgLEgICfFAe\ C8d96c64b32b00a13`15_18Z1AY1DX2FX2IW2KV2NU2PT3RS3U\ R3WR3ZQ3`P4cO4eN4hM4jM4lXHRgT5I21K55M78N9CPBFQEISG\ MTIPVKTWNWYPZZRb`TeaYeaVhaSkaPmaMpaJrZNfWRWVTMTVLR\ XKQZJO`JMbILdHJfG8eHIhGSkGanGnuHkpGhlGehFbdF``EYXE\ VTDSPDQLCNHCKDBH9BF5BG8DHBEHEFIHHIKIJNJJQLKTMKWNLZ\ PMaQMdRNgTNjUSaVS_UTXTTVS } frm:MandelbrotMix4 {; Jim Muth a=real(p1), b=imag(p1), d=real(p2), f=imag(p2), g=1/f, h=1/d, j=1/(f-b), z=(-a*b*g*h)^j, k=real(p3)+1, l=imag(p3)+100, c=fn1(pixel): z=k*((a*(z^b))+(d*(z^f)))+c, |z| < l } END PARAMETER FILE=========================================
Jim Muth wrote:
....and will artificial-intelligence computers ever be able to dream while they sleep?
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed). What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-} Sincerely, P.N.L. ------------------------------------------------- http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/PNL_Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
Only if they are seriously flawed ;-| Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul N. Lee To: philofractal@lists.fractalus.com Cc: fractint@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:57 AM Subject: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night [7]) Jim Muth wrote:
....and will artificial-intelligence computers ever be able to dream while they sleep?
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed). What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-} Sincerely, P.N.L. ------------------------------------------------- http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/PNL_Fractals.html http://www.Nahee.com/Fractals/ _______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Bruce Sanborn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Paul N. Lee <mailto:Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> *To:* philofractal@lists.fractalus.com <mailto:philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> *Cc:* fractint@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:fractint@mailman.xmission.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:57 AM *Subject:* [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night [7])
Jim Muth wrote: > > ....and will artificial-intelligence > computers ever be able to dream > while they sleep? >
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed).
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
Only if they are seriously flawed ;-|
Which they will be, having been designed and implemented by seriously-flawed human beings. On its own, imperfection can neither attain perfection nor even recognize perfection when it encounters perfection. -- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
----- Original Message ----- From: "david" <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Fractint and General Fractals Discussion" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 19 58 Subject: Re: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night[7])
Bruce Sanborn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Paul N. Lee <mailto:Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> *To:* philofractal@lists.fractalus.com <mailto:philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> *Cc:* fractint@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:fractint@mailman.xmission.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:57 AM *Subject:* [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night [7])
Jim Muth wrote: > > ....and will artificial-intelligence > computers ever be able to dream > while they sleep? >
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed).
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
Only if they are seriously flawed ;-|
Which they will be, having been designed and implemented by seriously-flawed human beings. On its own, imperfection can neither attain perfection nor even recognize perfection when it encounters perfection.
-- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
IMHO Bruce has it right, and the proof is in the pudding. David's comment is specious. If not so then the faults of any creator are infused in the creation.....so that a potter who is crippled makes crippled pottery? Perfection is attainable, and can be recognized even by the unperfect. The reverse logic of the statement also implies that since man is imperfect, so therefore must be man's creator, since the imperfections are, and must be, transferred. I don't think so. David M Fisher sunfish@intercom.net _______________________________________________
Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
David M Fisher wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "david" <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Fractint and General Fractals Discussion" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 19 58 Subject: Re: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night[7])
Bruce Sanborn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Paul N. Lee <mailto:Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> *To:* philofractal@lists.fractalus.com <mailto:philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> *Cc:* fractint@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:fractint@mailman.xmission.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:57 AM *Subject:* [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night [7])
Jim Muth wrote: > > ....and will artificial-intelligence > computers ever be able to dream > while they sleep? >
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed).
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
Only if they are seriously flawed ;-|
Which they will be, having been designed and implemented by seriously-flawed human beings. On its own, imperfection can neither attain perfection nor even recognize perfection when it encounters perfection.
-- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
IMHO Bruce has it right, and the proof is in the pudding.
The proof is in the sea of imperfect software that we call get to deal with ... ;-)
David's comment is specious. If not so then the faults of any creator are infused in the creation.....so that a potter who is crippled makes crippled pottery? Perfection is attainable, and can be recognized even by the unperfect.
How so? The imperfect perceive through imperfect senses and understand through imperfect minds, distorting - and rendering imperfect - any perfection it might perceive or achieve. So any perfection it encounters will not be recognized or understood *as perfection*, but as just another imperfection. No, perfection is not attainable by the unaided efforts of imperfection. It can only come from outside, from the efforts of some already existing perfection.
The reverse logic of the statement also implies that since man is imperfect, so therefore must be man's creator, since the imperfections are, and must be, transferred. I don't think so.
The logic doesn't run in reverse, because the creator->created relationship is not a symmetrical relationship. A crippled (or non-crippled, for that matter) potter may chose to make a "crippled" pot, but a pot in any state doesn't choose to make a potter in that same state. (I put "crippled" in quotes there to indicate that is a pot that was intentionally made imperfect - the product of a potter not even trying to attain perfection.) -- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
On Thursday 16 November 2006 08:53, david wrote:
The logic doesn't run in reverse, because the creator->created relationship is not a symmetrical relationship. A crippled (or non-crippled, for that matter) potter may chose to make a "crippled" pot, but a pot in any state doesn't choose to make a potter in that same state. (I put "crippled" in quotes there to indicate that is a pot that was intentionally made imperfect - the product of a potter not even trying to attain perfection.)
i tend to think what is perfection anyway ? i think we are perfect in the sense we are alive and exist. if a pot is made intentionally 'imperfect' then that is right, the aim is achieved and in that sense you have perfection, or ? sammi
sam ende wrote:
On Thursday 16 November 2006 08:53, david wrote:
The logic doesn't run in reverse, because the creator->created relationship is not a symmetrical relationship. A crippled (or non-crippled, for that matter) potter may chose to make a "crippled" pot, but a pot in any state doesn't choose to make a potter in that same state. (I put "crippled" in quotes there to indicate that is a pot that was intentionally made imperfect - the product of a potter not even trying to attain perfection.)
i tend to think what is perfection anyway ? i think we are perfect in the sense we are alive and exist. if a pot is made intentionally 'imperfect' then that is right, the aim is achieved and in that sense you have perfection, or ?
sammi
_ So Is perfection in the eyes of the beholder?
Doug
----- Original Message ----- From: "david" <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Fractint and General Fractals Discussion" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, 16 November, 2006 03 53 Subject: Re: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel inthe Night[7])
David M Fisher wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "david" <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Fractint and General Fractals Discussion" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 19 58 Subject: Re: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night[7])
Bruce Sanborn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Paul N. Lee <mailto:Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> *To:* philofractal@lists.fractalus.com <mailto:philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> *Cc:* fractint@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:fractint@mailman.xmission.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:57 AM *Subject:* [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night [7])
Jim Muth wrote: > > ....and will artificial-intelligence > computers ever be able to dream > while they sleep? >
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed).
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
Only if they are seriously flawed ;-|
Which they will be, having been designed and implemented by seriously-flawed human beings. On its own, imperfection can neither attain perfection nor even recognize perfection when it encounters perfection.
-- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
IMHO Bruce has it right, and the proof is in the pudding.
The proof is in the sea of imperfect software that we call get to deal with ... ;-)
David's comment is specious. If not so then the faults of any creator are infused in the creation.....so that a potter who is crippled makes crippled pottery? Perfection is attainable, and can be recognized even by the unperfect.
How so? The imperfect perceive through imperfect senses and understand through imperfect minds, distorting - and rendering imperfect - any perfection it might perceive or achieve. So any perfection it encounters will not be recognized or understood *as perfection*, but as just another imperfection.
No, perfection is not attainable by the unaided efforts of imperfection. It can only come from outside, from the efforts of some already existing perfection.
The reverse logic of the statement also implies that since man is imperfect, so therefore must be man's creator, since the imperfections are, and must be, transferred. I don't think so.
The logic doesn't run in reverse, because the creator->created relationship is not a symmetrical relationship. A crippled (or non-crippled, for that matter) potter may chose to make a "crippled" pot, but a pot in any state doesn't choose to make a potter in that same state. (I put "crippled" in quotes there to indicate that is a pot that was intentionally made imperfect - the product of a potter not even trying to attain perfection.)
-- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
OK. Lets get on the same sheet of music if we're going to sing. "Perfect" is an adjective, which makes it a descriptive part of speech, which in turn renders it subjective. "Perfection" is a noun which makes it objective. "Perfect" is without flaw, which leaves open the question "What is a flaw?" "Perfection" is the state of being flawless. So we have an objective, measureable, quantified, thing (perfection) based upon a subjective base (perfect). What is perfect, here, is not under discussion. Only if whatever my concrption of perfect is, is attainable. I believe it is. The potter analogy was used to exemplify only the idea that "creator" flaws do not necessarily appear in the "creation", although according to your statement this process can not be avoided. And at an higher level the reverse logic is applicable. According to religous belief, there is some supreme being who made everything. If this being is perfect where does the imperfection come from? If the perfect design was designed imperfect then two conclusions can be drawn: imperfection is perfection, or perfection can not be achieved no matter what the source. Religion states that a perfect god made an imperfect universe, with all the accoutrements. Without awareness would god exist? I do not think so, and upon this premise I posit that we, as a species, are the inventors who created religion, which in turn is used to explain and justify everything. The loop is closed to the faithful, and within this loop is the reverse symmetry which I alluded to without example or statement. Sorry, my bust. In closing I ask to show me the flaw in the simple following: 2+2=4. Or if your "new math" : 2+2=5 for large values of 2. David M Fisher _______________________________________________
Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
participants (7)
-
Bruce Sanborn -
david -
David M Fisher -
Doug Stewart -
Jim Muth -
Paul N. Lee -
sam ende