On Sunday, June 16, 2024, at 7:09 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > Not everything can be symbolized in words. I can't describe what a person > looks as well as showing you a picture. I can't describe what a novel > chemical smells like except to let you smell it. I can't tell you how to ride > a bicycle without you practicing.
That’s the point. You emit symbols that reference the qualia that you experienced of what the person looks like. The symbols or words are a compressed impressed representation of the original full symbol that you experienced in your mind. Your original qualia is your unique experience and another person receives your transmission or description to reference their own qualia which are also unique. It’s a hit or miss since you can’t transmit the full qualia but you can transmit more words to paint a more accurate picture and increase accuracy. There isn’t enough bandwidth, sampling capacity and instantaneousness but you have to reference something for the purposes of transmitting information spatiotemporally. A “thing” is a reference which it seems can only be a symbol, ever, unless the thing is the symbol itself and that would be the original unique qualia. Maybe there are exceptions? like numbers but they are still references to qualia going back in history... or computations? They are still derivatives. And no transmission is 100% reliable as there is always some small chance of error AFAIK. If I'm wrong I would like to know. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T682a307a763c1ced-M773f13826341af38c56a4e09 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
