On Mar 23, 1:08 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.

Possible, but it's also because in my understanding, subjectivity
works in exactly that way.

> > 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.

Then I might have a clown on a leash in the sky too.

> > 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.

Not my ideas of purpose - any possible idea of purpose.

If you can explain to me why a computer needs nothing but 1s and 0s to
play a symphony, but we need harmony, melody, rhythm, acoustics,
culture, feeling, etc, then all I would say you have a point, but I
know you have no more idea of how it could possibly make sense than I
do. I'm just being honest that it obviously makes no sense and not
holding on to fantasies of promissory functionalism.

> > 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.

Seems like you are getting the hang of the assertions+off the wall
metaphors game.


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