On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:19:08 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
> > all that says is that the geometry which we experience in the universe 
>> does not arise from my conscious control 
>>
>
> I thought you were the fellow who said consciousness was behind everything.
>

I never said that our personal consciousness was behind everything. I'm not 
a naive idealist. Only a very few things in the universe are under a human 
being's conscious control, but everything in the universe is here because 
it relates to some experience.
 

>
>  > a universe which is purely arithmetic is incompatible with a universe 
>> which contains any geometry.
>>
>
> With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the 
> way numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a 
> two dimensional plane. What more could you want arithmetic to do in support 
> of geometry, where on earth is the incompatibility?? 
>

You don't see that you are making my point. It doesn't matter whether 
arithmetic *supports* geometry or not. What matters is that if we cannot 
explain to how arithmetic *actually becomes geometry*, why it *must become 
geometric* under some arithmetic condition, then we *certainly cannot* 
claim that a purely arithmetic universe could possibly contain any geometry 
at all.


> > The AI can never experience triangles.
>>
>
> If technology is advanced enough to make a AI it's advanced enough to have 
> TV cameras and robotic claws. AI programs have been identifying and picking 
> up triangular blocks in a bin full of blocks of other shapes since the 
> 1960's.  
>

Obviously, but you are missing the point. AI programs wouldn't need to be 
written if computers could use cameras to see. The program is to convert 
the optical events into digital code. As long as the code matches the 
expectations which have been programmed, it doesn't matter whether the 
peripheral i/o device is a camera and claws or a microphone and eyedropper, 
or just a graphic avatar. The program can't tell the difference. If 
anything were experienced by a program (which is is not), then it would be 
digital instructions, not triangles. There is no collection of digital 
instructions that is a triangle.
 

>
> > I know for a fact that I have multi-dimensional presentations,
>>
>
> But the only way to prove that to others is by successfully maneuvering 
> something through a 3D obstacle course, and existing AI programs can 
> already do this.
>

Why would I need to prove that to others? If they don't have 
multi-dimensional presentations themselves then there is nothing I could do 
to prove my own to them. If I am the only sighted person in a world of 
blind people, I can't prove that there is a such thing as seeing, only that 
I seem to be able to some things that others cannot (and maybe that I 
refuse to do some things that everyone else seems compelled to do.)

Craig


>   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