On Mar 22, 6:09 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 2:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 4:58 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Then you agree with me: AI cannot make sense out of its world without
> >>> converting or sampling it digitally. That which it fails to digitize
> >>> is lost.
> >> Sure. What you don't see you don't see - which is almost all of the EM
> >> spectrum. Of
> >> course Bruno's theory is that it's all digital, but we're within the
> >> digits and cannot
> >> capture more than a measure zero.
> > Yes, human beings can't detect everything either, but my point was
> > that we know for certain that everything in an AI's world has to be
> > modeled digitally, therefore a digital brain creates a digital world
> > within it.
> I'm not sure that's so. All of our physical models of the world are based on
> Continua can be described and reasoned about by a digital system and
> continuous models can
> be computed to arbitrarily high precision (which is what we actually do in
> science and
That's because the world that they are modeling is actually not
digital, but the model itself still is. If there is a machine
intelligence in there, we know that it must live in the world that we
give it to sample digitally, whether or not it can produce output
which we interpret non-digitally. It's back to symbol grounding again.
I have a digital CD playing on a digital receiver. The acoustic
drivers are digital too. The music is not digital. The CD, the
receiver, and the speakers cannot hear the music. We can safely reason
that they probably do not hear the music, yes? We can assume though
that they must sample the CD digitally though. That we know for a
fact. That's all we know for a fact. If the same were true of us, we
would have no real reason to listen to a sequence of digital codes,
but if we did there would be no reason for it to sound like anything
other than a sequence of digital codes. It should sound just like it
> > Just because our ability to sense the world is not
> > unlimited doesn't mean that our sense is digital or a model. Our
> > experience of the world may not be a model at all, but a direct
> > presentation at the anthropomorphic level (which includes, but is not
> > limited to a mixture of lower level analog and digital
> > representations).
> > Even if our own world were nothing but a digital simulation, the
> > experience of it is not digital,
> You don't know that. How would continua experience differ from digital
It's not about being able to tell the difference, it's the fact that
there is any sensory experience at all. Any kind of sensory experience
is redundant if you have a digital information transfer. It would be
functionally useless and physically implausible to the extreme.
> > which wouldn't make sense in a
> > digital world. Why create
> Are you asking why God did something?
God, Chief Engineer, evolution, logic, whatever. Why does it make
sense that sense exists if you don't functionally need it?
> > a floridly rich abstraction layer of sense
> > experience if you already have the data you need to function
> > optimally, or, if you have the sense experience already, why would you
> > need any digital data to function?
> > Your comment brings up another related point. As you say, we only see
> > a small sliver of the EM spectrum. What that means is that we
> > (figuratively) 'see' that we don't literally 'see' all that there is.
> > We can make inferences that extend beyond the literal capacities of
> > our direct sensation. Can machines do that?
> Sure. Machines have extended sensory ability so, for example, they can
> navigate by GPS
> signals which we can't even detect.
Ugh. Not extended beyond *our* sensory abiility... extended beyond
*their own* sensory ability. We can't see gamma rays, but we figured
out that they (sort of) exist. Do Geiger counters ever figure out that
they are missing the visible spectrum?
> Similarly, migratory birds can navigate by sensing
> the Earth's magnetic field - something we do via prosthetics like compasses.
Yes. I know.
> > Can machines figure out
> > that they lack emotion on their own?
> If they were sufficiently intelligent.
That is the assumption I'm challenging.
> Are there emotions that you have figured out you
> lack, e.g. mother love?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at