On 3/22/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.

And it might be you're blowing smoke because you don't like the facts.

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.

But you might have one anyway.  Not everything is arranged per your needs.

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,

You keep talking about aspects of the world having no point, not being needed. You seem to implicitly assume the world was made to satisfy your ideas of purpose.

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.

And they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

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