On 30 Mar 2012, at 23:29, 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 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? 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. 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.
I have been arguing that COMP neglects these complexity issues
completely 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.
Comp is just the assumption that we are machine, to said it shortly.
Then it is shown as a consequence that not only we cannot neglect the
physical reality, but that we have to retrieve it from arithmetic,
without using any probabilistic *selection*. Comp is the problem, not
the solution. Only the materialist believe wrongly that comp solves
the mind problem, and *they* take matter for granted. Pretending that
comp neglects problem is contrary to the facts, because comp just
shows precisely where the problems come from (the taking granted of
the physical reality).
Bruno
Onward!
Stephen
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
