On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:23:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
> >> Then why can't a one dimensional Turing machine do geometry, 
>> > It can solve geometry problems,
> Yes. 
>  > but it can't generate geometric forms. 
> Can you generate geometric forms? Your fingers can draw a triangle but are 
> you fingers you, if your fingers were cut off would you no longer be you? 

Even if that were true, (which is questionable since I could still imagine 
geometric forms visually or embodied by gestures), all that says is that 
the geometry which we experience in the universe does not arise from my 
conscious control - which I have never asserted. 

My point was that a universe which is purely arithmetic is incompatible 
with a universe which contains any geometry.

> > It has nowhere to draw a triangle and nothing to draw it with, no eyes 
>> to see it, and no mind to appreciate it as a form.
> I don't know what your point is. Yes if you restrict a AI to one dimension 
> then obviously it will not be able to draw a triangle, but you couldn't 
> either.

It can have a million dimensions and still won't ever have a use for 
geometry. This is why we have to scan images into binary code rather than 
just miniaturizing pictures of them to be stored in some kind of geometric 

> It can tell you all kinds of things about triangles, just like Mary can 
> tell you all kinds of things about red, but there is no experience which is 
> triangular.

Then give the AI experience with triangles, after all the brain of a real 
AI will be just as 3D as your brain. 

The AI can never experience triangles. It has no need to. It has all the 
information it can ever need about triangles just be defining them as 
arithmetic functions.

> A universe generated by Turing-like arithmetic would not and could not 
> have any use for multi-dimensional presentations. 

A one dimensional Craig Weinberg would not and could not have any use for 
multi-dimensional presentations. 

Right. But since I know for a fact that I have multi-dimensional 
presentations, I know that arithmetic is not sufficient to define me. 
That's my point. Any number of quantitative dimensions of arithmetic could 
only ever be the same dimension arranged in more complex relations. There 
is no possibility that a qualitative difference could arise. The computer 
doesn't care if you listen to the mp3 in headphones, look at it as graphic 
oscillations over time, or one huge bitmap, or a list of values in ASCII 
text. If the computer had a point of view, it would see all of these forms 
as arbitrary computational formats without any presentational forms at all.

> Since we actually do live in a universe of mega-multi demensional sensory 
> presentations, that means that comp fails 

Fine, "comp" fails. I'm glad to be rid of it as I never even knew what the 
damn word meant and have become increasingly convinced that nobody else on 
this list knows either. 

I think of it as meaning that consciousness can be defined entirely as a 
computational process, but I agree, it seems like an elusive beast 


  John K Clark


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to