2008/12/11 Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>: > There is no problem though seeing the entities and movements in a movie - > Ben, say, raising his hand, or shaking Steve's hand, or laughing or making > some other facial expression. Sure, we can argue and/or be confused about > the significance and classification of what exactly is going on. Is he > really laughing, and is it spontaneous, or slightly sarcastic etc? But there > can be little to no confusion about the exact movements Ben is making - how > his hand is grasping Steve's, say, how his lips have moved. We can agree > pretty scientifically there.
This only comes courtesy of a long evolutionary history, such that the ability to interpret such things is for us nearly effortless and effectively built in as firmware. My main point is that the information doesn't really exist in any intrinsic sense within the movie, but that you contain a lot of information (of both a learned and inherited variety) which you're then using to interpret particular types of optical pattern. That video is a higher bandwidth communication channel than language is undoubtedly true. From an engineering point of view we have high bandwidth inputs (vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste) but very low bandwidth outputs (movement, speech). The apparent unambiguousness of video evidence given within a court room is only really because of the shared embodiment of the protagonists, endowing them with similar electrochemical machinery dedicated to the analysis of optical patterns together with a similar developmental process. However, if the jury were to consist of different species (or AGI) the lack of ambiguity might break down. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
