On 3/22/2012 4:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.
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
engineering).
That's because the world that they are modeling is actually not
digital,

Unsupported assertion.

but the model itself still is.

No. So far as I know, no one has come up with a digital model of physics that isn't empirically falsified - and it isn't for want of trying. All the models are continuous and based on real numbers. It is just that all the calculations and measurements are digital, i.e. based on integers.

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.

What difference does it make to symbolic grounding whether the symbol refers to a continuum or an integer field?

I have a digital CD playing on a digital receiver. The acoustic
drivers are digital too. The music is not digital.

Another unsupported assertion. How would you know? Some people claimed that digital audio sounded different - but double blind tests showed they were mistaken.

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
tastes.

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 
experience?
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.

LOL!! That's pretty funny coming from a guy reading pixels off a screen that looks continuous to him.


   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?

That would be a good question IF I had created it for me.


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.

Your "challenges" consist of nothing but assertions occasionally supported by off-the-wall metaphors.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to