On 15/02/2008, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike, > > You have been pushing this anti-symbol/pro-image dichotomy for a long time. > I don't understand it. > > Images are set, or nets, of symbols. So, if, as you say > > > " all symbols provide an extremely limited *inventory of the > > world* and all its infinite parts and behaviors " > > then images are equally limited, since they are nothing but set or nets of > symbols. Your position either doesn't make sense or is poorly stated.
I think the definition of symbols, is what is the problem is here. I tend to think of symbol (in an AI sense at least) to be about or related to something in the world. The classic idea of having symbols for cat or dog, and deducing facts from them. An image is not intrinsically about anything in the world, the optical illusions (dalmatian in spots, two faces or vase or the necker cube) show we can view an image in different ways. Mental Images aren't even necessarily made up of data "about" photon activity, they can be entirely concocted. Mike needs to clarify what he means by symbol before we start, or perhaps find or invent a less confusing word. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
