> From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > No, I believe I'm right here. Maths is only quantification - the > question is > : what are you quantifying? Programs are only recipes to construct > something > or a sequence of behaviour. The question again is: what are you > constructing? >
Maths is not only quantification. You do not understand it. Math is more about relationships. I could argue, but will not, that everything is math, especially when you take a digital physics perspective. > You have to START by providing a model of consciousness - of what it > involves. It is grossly unscientific not to do so. And that movie is the > sine qua non starting point for a model. > Uh no. You can have theoretical models of models. A model that is a set of potential models. > Certainly intelligence has to be applied to the movie - to understand > what > is being reflected in the movie - the objects and world around you. > The movie - the sensory intake, and then the internal world model inside of the AGI, including itself. The relationship of the movie with the internal model with sensory, then you are getting somewhere. > And by all means quantify and program away - but first agree about what > you > are quantifying. Otherwise it's all basically hot air. And you guys - > along > with all other serious thinkers discussing this area - have NO AGREEMENT > about what you are discussing, or whether any of you are talking about > the > same thing. That, if you think about it, is ridiculous. > > Damasio who is one of the best thinkers here, talks of consciousness as > the > "movie in the mind" - I believe that "world movie" is a step forward > because > it focusses on what the movie shows and is for. > > Some perspective here: words are absolutely wrong and misleading as a > SOLE > medium to discuss consciousness - they fragment whatever you are talking > about. And consciousness is indeed a continuous movie, (for want of a > still > richer model) - and MUST be talked about with the aid of movies, as I > tried > to do. > There's too much of this movie stuff it is too simplistic. > The reason people resist this model - is they are only comfortable > talking > in words. They are uncomfortable and ill-versed thinking visually and > sensorily. Well, tough. If you are serious about consciousness, there is > no > alternative. You cannot discuss actual movies in cinemas seriously with > just > words. Nor can you discuss the movie-that-is-consciousness seriously > with > just words either. > > You guys, I am consistently arguing, have to learn respect for the > brain. If > the brain does things a certain way, then that is probably the "ideal" > way > to do it - in the technical, psychological sense - i.e. not the > "perfect" > way, not something that can't be improved, but a more or less inevitable > and > essential way, (in a very broad sense), to tackle the given problems. It evolved. > > And the way the brain chooses throughout evolution to tackle the > problems of > survival is to run a movie. Your brain does not allow you, for example, > to > jump straight to imbibing logic and mathematics - as your computers can > - it Like I said you need to understand what mathematics is. > forces you to run a movie of the books you're reading, or computer > screen > you're looking at, and all those logical and mathematical figures have > to be > processed as IMAGES. Your brain insists that you SEE or otherwise sense > what > you're talking about. > > > The same is true with consciousness. Model first what consciousness > does. > It sees etc - runs a movie - of the world. > A movie implies someone or something watching it. Too simplistic. A rock is getting the world movie played upon it ad infinitum. John ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
