On fleas on fleas
Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:07:58 +0100
Am 16-Jun-00 schrieb Soma:
> And finally, nothing in this universe is different in this respect.
> (yes, too far perhaps) (is this OT? Hmm..) Though objects such as
> hypotheses and rocks are different only in two respects: Rocks don't
> have a very big vocabulary or autonomy, and hypotheses (and ghosts
> and gods) only function through their believers.
No, not ghosts and gods. If a god (or gods) exist, he is not dependant
on any believers. He can do without them as well.
But most (if not all) beliefs in ghosts or gods are hypotheses, that
> Though we can only know the world through language, can we say that
> this is what the world made of? When you think about it that way, it
> virtually is because we cannot see it in any other way.
I think we can. There are surely things we do feel but we cannot tell
about that feelings. But maybe this is simply because we are not as
skilled in our language? :-)
Even if you see "seeing", "smelling", etc. as a kind of language, I
think we can enhance our world's view by thinking or feeling.
> How do you distinguish between simulcra and 'reality'? Is there any
> real difference? If in every respect a simulation is accurate, is it
> not a world in a bubble? Isn't this the point of simulation?
Yes. And you can populate a simulated world with characters. They
don't really act on their own since all we can do is either automate
them (to enforce them to act, making them roboters), or steer them
ourselves. And if you steer such a character, you can feel that:
- Some of the simulated worlds are "closed". You can touch the world
and change their properties or the actions taken in the world, but
the characters in it cannot see that there is existing anything
outside their world, and as well they cannot see that you steer
anything in it, although you do.
- A few of the simulated worlds are "open" and include us as the
simulated world's gods. In those worlds, the characters know that
there is existing something that made their world and steers the
world. Depending on the world, it may be either difficult for a
character to gather that information, or obvious.
> Therefore, AI is virtually just plain I,
No. AI is always forcing action since AI is a program. AI actions are
"born" to a character and the character neither can steer AI-forced
actions nor can he think of steering them. Just try to steer your
heartbeat! Or for a more complex example, try to hold your breath
until your limbs are blue! Our "breath-holding AI" activates itself
whenever we try to hold our breath for a given time. Rememer, AI is
just a program and does have nothing to do with "Intelligence",
whatever that is.
AI is a part of the human body, but not "I". I CAN make decisions. Or
do you tell me that AI forced you into working with TUNES?
> Therefore, AI is virtually just plain I, because we too are MADE
> from something (artifice). I suppose the difference is we are made
> by something which uses trial and error. However, computer science
> is working on how to allow computers to do just that.
Very unlikely. There are a lot of parts in us that would not have
evolved if we were just a product of evolution, or just trial and
error. Is playing and enjoing music essential for staying alive?
Would we pay any attention to the birds' songs or the scent and
beauty of flowers if we were made by evolution? Or our ability to do
> If you follow my thought process, then you must agree that at some
> point any given system evolves from some beginning which is above
> and outside itself reaching in and giving the system a bootstrap of
> some sort.
> I'm not saying 'god', but to use a cybernetic metaphor, there is
> probably an autonomous meta-program out there somewhere (outside of
> our universe) which goes about the place planting universe seeds. In
> fact it's probably self-replicating, and the whole purpose of all of
> it is to make things more and more and more and more and more and
> more ... um... Interesting? Complex? Diverse?
> Every entity, be it tangible or intangible (temporal or spatial),
> contains at its core the same seed, the same kernel, and to bring it
> back right down to the basic level, it is 'on'/'yang'/+ (etc) and
> 'off'/'yin/- (etc.), in a constant state of flux, switching at some
> phenomenal speed, really at infinite speed (and therefore you
> couldn't really say it was either or, but rather that it was both.)
I don't like that. Mathamatically, switching between "on" and "off" at
a phenomenal speed is the same as a value between zero and one, maybe
changing with time; but I prefer to think of a real number being
between 0.0 and 1.0. It seems more basic to me than switching between
0 and 1 at a phenomenal speed. And it is easier to calculate with.
And there surely are dimensions in a world's view that use other type
of dimensions that you describe. The "time" dimension, for a very
exotic example, is a continual dimension that does have markers which
move forward (you cannot go back in time). Most dimensions are
non-continual. And the time dimension seems to have a beginning and
> Anyway, this takes us back to something more like the topic: In the
> system I have imagined, all symbols are bound to their opposites and
> their aliases(synonyms and antonyms), and really they are a single
> unit, because you cannot consider a thing without considering what
> the thing is not.
Which synonym, and which antonym?
A symbol may have different synonyms or antonyms, depending on which
dimension of the system's view you decide to look at.
Most people say "short" is an antonym to "long", but another valid
view is that "broad" or "thick" is an antonym to "long", depending on
which view of the symbol you look at.
Most symbols do have quite a number of antonyms, which aren't synonyms
to each other; or they may have quite a number of synonyms, which
aren't synonyms to each other, because they emerge from different
views of the symbol.
Ignaz Kellerer // _Ignaz@navy.org___/ http://www.navy.org/ \__
irc: Acrimon \X/ Amiga is alive! \ /home/Ignaz@navy.org /