On 3/30/2012 2:29 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/30/2012 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/30/2012 4:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/30/2012 3:08 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/29/2012 10:23 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Take my favorite thought experiment. Suppose I design two Mars Rovers and I want them to coordinate their movements in order to round up Martian sheep. I can easily distribute the artificial intelligence between the two of them, using data links so whatever one sees the other sees (incidentally this, minus the AI, is what combat aircraft software does now) and so there is a single top level decision routine on top of local decision routines about maneuvering around obstacles and managing internal states.

OK, I'll bite. That AI program is running on the combination of the two pieces of hardware, this is no different than how Watson <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-01-14-ibm-jeopardy_N.htm> runs on a much of connected servers. But think about it, does not the data correlated to the sensors on one of the Rovers have to be synchronized with the data from the other Rover so that their manuevering can be controled. How exactly is the internal model of this system built so that it can 'consider itself' as being both exploring some pile of rocks east of Mt. Olympus while the other Rover is taking a dirt sample in some crater 500 kilometers away. It is not possible for two fixed points to exist on one compact and closed manifold. You can only have one at a time. What you describe is more like a Rover with a multiple personality disorder.

You're suffering from a failure of imagination. It can make a model in which it considers itself has having to bodies at two different places. It wouldn't even be hard to program. If you can experience two different places and you can act in two different places you ARE in two different places.

Brent
--
Hi Brent,

Could you give us a brief explanation of how this would work? I will readily admit to a failure of imagination here.

Just as you have two eyes providing two 2D views of the world which your brain merges into one 3D model, one can merge the data streams from many different sensors located in disparate places to create a single unified model. Military systems do this for battlefield awareness. And this model can include a 'self'. The self is usually located where the hardware is because evolution requires that the hardware/self be protected.

Brent
Hi Brent,

Interesting. " ... merge ... streams ... to create a single unified model...". How is this not consistent with my original claim above? My claim is that a single unified model must obtain and that the notion of 1-p identity follows directly from this and thus if no unification can obtain neither does a 1-p. What did you imagine that I was claiming?

That having different points of view implied different consciousnesses.

What I have been trying to point out is that the "single unified model" must be such that there are no logical or resource conflicts.

Of course if there is a single actor, he doesn't want to act against himself and so conflicts must be resolved. But that's no different that a pilot and copilot having to agree on navigation. The model only needs to be unified at the top level of action. So there can be differences at lower levels, as there seem to be in the human brain.


I go further to claim that this is an example of the SAT problem in applied logic. It is known that SAT is an NP-Complete problem and thus the computational complexity issues must be addressed.

Real problems are usually different from SAT in that they admit of degrees of 
satisfaction.

I have been arguing that COMP neglects these complexity issues completely

I'd say Bruno consciously rejects them because he sees a Platonic answer as *more fundamental* and hence preferable.

Brent

and seemingly does so by eliminating the necessity to consider the actual physical implementations of the computations, preferring instead to postulate some "Platonic" realm where computations have particular properties merely on the basis, it is argued, that the truth valuations of Sigma_1 sentences is completely independent of our knowledge of their content. I see this as equivalent to saying that "since there exist strings of numbers that are solutions to NP-Complete problems then we don't need to worry about actually having to find them" and thus bypass problems like SAT. Instead we are offered an interesting form of Occasionalism or Accidentalism to explain how it is that we actually do experience a physical world.

Onward!

Stephen

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4904 - Release Date: 03/30/12

--
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.

--
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