> SYMETRY: All output channels are associated with at least one > input/feedback mechanism. > > SEMANTIC RELATIVITY: The primary symantic foundation of the system is > the input and output systems. (almost everything is expressed in terms > of input and output at some level..) > > TEMPORALITY: Both input and outputs have a semanticly significant > temporal component. > > Reciently, I've added this other observation to my folder full of > handwritten notes: > > CHANNEL INDEPENDANCE PROBLEM: The naieve implementation of abstraction, > such as FORTH, (semantic relativity) tends to be strongly bound to an > exact pattern match or a close match on a specific input channel. The > brain is clearly more flexable than this so there must be a way to > express abstractions in the form of an independant relation that can be > applied to any input or output channel. (this is the heart-center of > "pattern recognition" etc...)
Alan, These principles are almost certainly true ones.... What you call "Semantic relativity" has to be moderated in three ways though 1) Language. A nonlinguistic mind has to ground all its concepts in terms of its inputs and outputs. A linguistic mind gets information from other minds. This information may be "ungrounded" - for instance I may read about what it felt like to be a Chinese peasant, and then have knowledge about this which does not come directly from my experience. Of course I will interpret this ungrounded knowledge by analogy to my I/O grounded knowledge. and it does come thru my I/O channels in the sense that I use my senses to communicate. 2) Direct mind-to-mind communication I'm not talking about telepathy, I'm talking about AI's directly feeding each other mind-stuff, in ways that humans cannot do. You may count this as an "input" but it's a direct cognitive input, not a sensory one -- a different sort of animal. 3) Mathematics Basic math knowledge like "1+1=2" is grounded in perception for sure. But how about a theorem in the theory of inaccessible cardinals?? How is our knowledge of these very large infinite sets grounded in perception and action? This kind of knowledge is a result of cultural self-organization, not a result of grounding in perception and action. Though of course it's indirectly related to perception and action via the linguistic communication we use to talk about mathematics, the math we write on the whiteboard, etc. -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
