2008/12/11 Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk:
If you try and reduce those maps to any other form, e.g. some mathematical
or program form, you *lose the object.* It's equivalent to taking a jigsaw
puzzle to pieces - all you have are the pieces, and you've lost the picture
- the whole.
Visual images, in particular, uniquely provide *isomorphic maps of objects.*
Well, no.
The congenitally blind also create internal isomorphic maps of objects
Vision is a rich source of information, but it is does not in itself
provide isomorphic maps of object -- it provides messy, noisy
2008/12/11 Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
*Ben Goertzel is a continuously changing reality. At 10.05 pm he will be
different from 10.00pm, and so on. He is in fact many individuals.
Based on some of the stuff which I've been doing with SLAM algorithms
I'd agree with this sort of
Steve,
I thought someone would come up with the kind of objection you have put
forward. Your objection is misplaced. ( And here we have an example of what I
meant by knowing [metacognitively about] imaginative intelligence -
understanding metacognitively how imagination works).
Consider what
2008/12/11 Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk:
But an image/movie can only be compared with a verbal statement in terms of
what it *actually shows* - the *surface, visible action.* His actual,
observable dialogue and gestures and expressions - that and only that is
what a movie records
Mike and Bob,
There seems to be a massive confusion between data and information here. To
illustrate:
1. A movie is just data until it is analyzed to extract some (if any) *
useful* information.
2. A verbal description is typically somewhere in between, as it contains
bits of ???, some of which
Bob,
I think you've been blinded by science here :). You don't actually see -
and science hasn't, in all its history, seen - photons hitting receptors.
What you're talking about there is very sophisticated, and not at all
immediately-obvious/evident inferences made from scientific
2008/12/11 Mike Tintner tint...@blueyonder.co.uk:
There is no problem though seeing the entities and movements in a movie -
Ben, say, raising his hand, or shaking Steve's hand, or laughing or making
some other facial expression. Sure, we can argue and/or be confused about
the significance and
Bob:That video is a higher bandwidth communication channel than language
is undoubtedly true.
Bob,
Aaargh! You're repeating the primary fallacy of seemingly everyone here -
i.e. all images and symbols are just different forms of data -
bandwidth.
(I should respond at length but I can't
A further off-the-cuff thought re the vagueness/open-endedness of words.
*All words are generalisations.
*Generalisations cover open-ended groups of individuals.
*Generalisations are, strictly, fictions. The only reality is individuals.
There are no humans/human race,cats, dogs only individual
Mike,
On 12/10/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Even words for individuals are generalisations.
*Ben Goertzel is a continuously changing reality. At 10.05 pm he will be
different from 10.00pm, and so on. He is in fact many individuals.
*Any statement about an individual, like Ben
11 matches
Mail list logo
