Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>>George and List:
>>a very naive question (even more than my other posts) since I miss lots
> of
>>posts that have been exuded on this list (since a decade or so of my
> incompletely reading it):
>>Has it been ever formulated (and accepted on this list!) what we mean by
> the verb "to observe"? What does an 'observer' do in its (not his!!!)
> 'observer minute'? WHAT (and not 'who') is an observer?
> Many hours spent on this one.
> My definition sounds odd but only because I have to literally 'build'
> observation that I have had to sort it out. As an engineer I know that
> building an X is a sure route to an intimate understanding of
> design goal: construction of an artificial scientist (artificial general
> intelligence - AGI). Thus logically I must build an observer. So.. the
> design aim of the project has observation as follows...(off the top of my
> head!):
> Observation involves (necessitates) the AGI having experiences, some of
> which are an experiential representation of the external world. The
> process of generation of the experiential field(s) involves the insertion
> of the AGI in the chain of causality from that which is observed 'out
> there' through the external world to the sensing surface, impact (causal
> interaction) measured by sensing, transport (causality again) of the
> measurement through the AGI to the brain where the measurement
> participates in the causality that is the creation of the experiential
> field. 

So that is what is *involved* in creating the experiential field.  But what is 
field?  I understand it is a representation of the external world, but what 
about it 
makes it a representation? I hope you're not going to say because "the 
recognizes or uses it as such.

>It is by virtue of the existence/reality of the _entire_ causal
> chain that the experiential field can be created and be called observation
> of the external world. (Clearly experiential fields can also be created as
> hallucinations/dreams, without the full causality chain - but that is not
> the 'observation' we are talking about). In making use of the complete
> causal chain the oberver has access (inherits some of the properties of)
> to that which is observed. 

This sound like your experiential field is a play performed in the Cartesian 
fof the edification of the observer.

>This is not 'creating reality' in the
> Berkeleyian sense. This is participation in it. This is construction of a
> representation of it from within the reality.
> This process I have described is observation and all of observation -
> nothin else counts as observation. 

So anything happening in my brain that has a causal connection to the world is 
observation.  I can buy that, but it seems so broad as to include things, like 
recalling memories, not usually called "observation".

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to