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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
