On Mar 22, 8:28 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.

If the world is digital already, then why would you need to model it?
Does a digital computer need a continua to open a digital file?

> > 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.

That's what I'm saying. A model = calculations and measurements.
That's what I mean by the modelling itself. If I write a book about
physics, the book can be written in English but not speculating that
physics itself is an English phenomenon.

> > 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 never said that those were the two choices, you are the one who
introduced continuity. Both analog and digital are methods of
abstracting. I'm not talking about one kind of model versus another,
I'm talking about concrete presentation versus abstract
representation. My position is that our experience in the world is no
model at all (although modeling is certainly part of it). Our
experience is not a total experience of THE universe, but it is a
total experience of OUR world (perceptual inertial framework), which
includes the understanding that there is a difference and the tools to
actually extend our world further into rest of the universe.

The machine's world is not similarly open to expansion. It does not
have the tools to extend its sense. You could connect a camera to Deep
Blue through a printer port in it would never in a trillion years
figure out how to use it.

> > 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?

If music were digital you wouldn't need to hear it. You could look at
a picture of the data and get the same experience.

> Some people claimed that digital audio
> sounded different - but double blind tests showed they were mistaken.

That may be true, and that's not what I was talking about, but also I
don't think that any kind of objective test like that prove that
anyone is 'mistaken' about how something feels. It may be that doing a
double blind test creates a placebo effect when subjectivity is being
tested. Just as the double slit test does unexpected things to light,
we cannot assume that our subtle awareness can be manipulated on
demand. That assumption itself is a cognitive bias which may very well
contaminate the data.

It seems to me that digital audio is colder, clearer, with more
brittle and shallow percussion and more sibilance than analog. It's
hard to say because I'm not comparing apples to apples, but I'm not
sure that the experiment you are talking about did either. I don't
know what assumptions they made. Also why does everyone seem to make
the same exact mistake about how digital sounds to them? Why no people
who insist that digital is more expressive and poetic?

> > 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.

If I were digital I wouldn't need a screen. I would receive the
information directly from the digital source with no intermediary
display at all. If I had a display, there would be no point in seeing
the pixels as continuous, I would see them exactly as they are.

> >>>    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.

don't understand

> >>> 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.

If that were true, would it make them any less of a challenge?
Sometimes "The Emperor wears no clothes." is sufficient.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to