2008/12/11 Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> *"Ben Goertzel" is a continuously changing reality. At 10.05 pm he will be
> different from 10.00pm, and so on. He is in fact many individuals.


Based on some of the stuff which I've been doing with SLAM algorithms
I'd agree with this sort of interpretation.  You can only really tell
what Ben was doing after the fact, and even then with uncertainty
still attached.  Ben is traversing a multiverse of possible paths,
which collapse progressively over time as more data becomes available
to the observer.

If Ben were a poet or author of popular fiction it might be
advantageous for him to use strategies which prevent the possible
paths from collapsing too far, so that the observer may exercise a
degree of fuzzy creative interpretation about him and his works.
Novelists often seem to be amused by the numerous and occasionally
unexpected possible interpretations of their stories by readers.


> *A movie of Ben chatting from 10.00pm to 10.05pm will be subject to
> extremely few possible interpretations, compared with a verbal statement
> about him.


True, but still a movie contains a high degree of uncertainty.  Movie
directors exploit uncertainty to convey a particular impression or
mood within the storyline.  When you back-project the rays of light
from each pixel (aka "picture element") within the movie, you'll find
that what's actually being depicted is very fuzzy and uncertain, and
it's only through integration over time together with dodgy heuristics
(subject to errors illustrated by well know visual illusions) that
this uncertainty is reduced.


-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to