Quote:

Original post by MikeD This would be my understanding of Unicorn from analogy, all of which require experience, none of which might be true.

...but you've not actually experienced the Unicorn, so by your earlier reasoning, you could not say you understand Unicorns, only the components of imagined Unicorns. I do note that you're not actually in disagreement with your earlier comments... but now you claim to have an understanding of the Unicorn based on an understanding of the parts. Or are you still just saying that the only thing you understand is the parts and how they might reasonably interrelate given your other beliefs about the laws of nature?

If this is what you're saying, then I think you're actually closer to my definition of understanding based on models than you might think you are. I still believe that understanding depends only on knowing the properties of a thing (object or event) and the relationships between the thing and other things. What else is there? Therefore, for the Unicorn, understanding could be attained by knowing about the component parts and how they relate to form the Unicorn and then knowing how the Unicorn relates with its environment. Now, I certainly agree that without actually seeing a Unicorn in its natural environment, one's understanding may be limited (because one is unlikely to be able to fully define all of the relationships the Unicorn has with its environment unless one completely understands the Universe). However, does not completely understanding something mean that we don't understand it at all?

Quote:

Shall we find a definition of qualia we both like and discuss things based on that?

I'm not convinced that qualia is necessary for understanding. If I had to give a definition that I felt comfortable with, I would say that qualia is the essence of a thing from which, according to the laws of physics, all observables of instances of the thing are drawn.

Quote:

I'd like to hear some examples of properties that don't require observers.

Do you believe that if you killed off all of the observers in the Universe, the Universe would not exist, or the objects and events within the Universe would not have properties? I agree that it would no longer exist for those observers. However, imagine an external observer who can see that the Universe exists, both before the internal observers are killed and after. This observer cannot see into the Universe to observe the properties of things in the Universe, but it can verify the continued existance of the Universe. Do the things inside the Universe no longer exist simply because some of the atoms in the Universe change their state? I don't think that's probable. The insides of atomic nuclei still exist even though I cannot see them. I can perform an experiment on a nuclei on one day and obtain results and I can perform that experiment the next day and receive the same results (within my ability to measure comparable results). I cannot see the quarks in the nucleus nor can I observe them directly. Does that mean they don't have properties?

Indeed, while I believe in subjective reality, I believe this only exists in so far as we are subjective about our beliefs about the Universe. That does not mean the Universe itself is subjective. Thus, I believe that there are properties of objects that exist without observers.

However, I do agree that if we were to try and measure these properties, we are necessarily thrust into the realm of subjectivity. Then, scientific method is a good tool to use to attempt to narrow down the plausible objective value of that property at the time of measurement. Can science give us absolutes? I don't believe so. But that doesn't mean we are unable to form reasonable (subjective) beliefs about the objective properties of things.

I agree then that understanding is subjective and I agree that it may therefore be impossible to formulate an objective understanding within communication between two observers, only a communal understanding. However, I do believe that two observers can agree on a joint understanding and that through independent observation it may be possible to tune that understanding to reflect the objective reality, even though neither of them will be able to prove that this is the case.

Cheers,

Timkin

Quote:

Original post by Timkin ...but you've not actually experienced the Unicorn, so by your earlier reasoning, you could not say you understand Unicorns, only the components of imagined Unicorns. I do note that you're not actually in disagreement with your earlier comments... but now you claim to have an understanding of the Unicorn based on an understanding of the parts. Or are you still just saying that the only thing you understand is the parts and how they might reasonably interrelate given your other beliefs about the laws of nature? If this is what you're saying, then I think you're actually closer to my definition of understanding based on models than you might think you are. I still believe that understanding depends only on knowing the properties of a thing (object or event) and the relationships between the thing and other things. What else is there? Therefore, for the Unicorn, understanding could be attained by knowing about the component parts and how they relate to form the Unicorn and then knowing how the Unicorn relates with its environment. Now, I certainly agree that without actually seeing a Unicorn in its natural environment, one's understanding may be limited (because one is unlikely to be able to fully define all of the relationships the Unicorn has with its environment unless one completely understands the Universe). However, does not completely understanding something mean that we don't understand it at all?

As long as you agree that knowing the properties of a thing and the interrelations of things, means understanding them, which means having experience of them in some domain and your understanding of things outside your direct experience is only understanding as far as your application of current experience maps accurately to a similar (if potential rather than instantiated) experience of the described thing.
So, your understanding of the symbol Unicorn might be by analogy and that is your understanding by having the symbols contained in the analogy grounded in experience. However, that understanding by analogy is only related to your potential understanding of the object Unicorn as far as your grounding of the symbol by analogy is intransient with the potential grounding of the symbol by experience.

I've read the above a few times and it's exactly what I'm trying to say. I may have to explain it further as it's a bit brief and to the point and my language use might not be self-explanatory enough.

Quote:

I'd like to hear some examples of properties that don't require observers.

Quote:

Original post by Timkin Do you believe that if you killed off all of the observers in the Universe, the Universe would not exist, or the objects and events within the Universe would not have properties? I agree that it would no longer exist for those observers. However, imagine an external observer who can see that the Universe exists, both before the internal observers are killed and after. This observer cannot see into the Universe to observe the properties of things in the Universe, but it can verify the continued existance of the Universe. Do the things inside the Universe no longer exist simply because some of the atoms in the Universe change their state? I don't think that's probable. The insides of atomic nuclei still exist even though I cannot see them. I can perform an experiment on a nuclei on one day and obtain results and I can perform that experiment the next day and receive the same results (within my ability to measure comparable results). I cannot see the quarks in the nucleus nor can I observe them directly. Does that mean they don't have properties? Indeed, while I believe in subjective reality, I believe this only exists in so far as we are subjective about our beliefs about the Universe. That does not mean the Universe itself is subjective. Thus, I believe that there are properties of objects that exist without observers. However, I do agree that if we were to try and measure these properties, we are necessarily thrust into the realm of subjectivity. Then, scientific method is a good tool to use to attempt to narrow down the plausible objective value of that property at the time of measurement. Can science give us absolutes? I don't believe so. But that doesn't mean we are unable to form reasonable (subjective) beliefs about the objective properties of things. I agree then that understanding is subjective and I agree that it may therefore be impossible to formulate an objective understanding within communication between two observers, only a communal understanding. However, I do believe that two observers can agree on a joint understanding and that through independent observation it may be possible to tune that understanding to reflect the objective reality, even though neither of them will be able to prove that this is the case.

I would say that if you were to kill all entities that can interact with the Universe in such a way as to have their behaviour affected intransiently when confronted with certain interactions, which were mass-subjectively labelled as "the colour white", then you would no longer have the colour white. I am not saying that the Universe would disappear on an objective level. I'm simply saying the the human understanding of the colour white would no longer exist, so "white" would no longer exist.

You said "or the objects and events within the Universe would not have properties". I say there are no objects and event within the Universe without observers. There is a fundament, but it just is, it does not have objects, these are created by observers delineating their interactions with their environment. The properties of these objects don't exist either. Without an observer led differentiation of interaction there is no reality. There is a fundament from which all reality occurs, but there is no objective reality itself. All reality is subjective and defined by the form of the observer which defines the domain of interactions of that observer with its environment. This includes all attempts to "measure the properties" of the Universe. Measurements are defined by interaction, which is defined by perception and which defines what is measured and how.

There are no nuclei without an observer, there are no quarks without an observer, there are no interactions between anything without an observer. There is the fundament that forms the interaction that creates the observation, but as soon as you label it, measure it, observe it, interact with it, it's your subjective reality and no longer the fundament.

If you try to talk about it, it becomes the "not that, not that".

All our perceptions are defined by an evolutionary process. All our interactions are from a single perspective. There is no white without us, because we define white by our interactions, not because white was always there waiting to be seen.

In some ways this is an unimportant distinction, but it's the basis for all science. Which makes it fundamental.

I may have wandered off topic here :)

Mike

Quote:

Original post by MikeD As long as you agree that knowing the properties of a thing and the interrelations of things...

I believe I can accept that definition. I may yet have some doubts as to the necessity of direct experience, however it seems reasonable that at some point during analogy (even a second or higher order analogy), one must have experience of the domain so as to be able to ground the understanding. However, I'm not going to go so far as to insist that the domain be the 'real world', since this seems to cast shadows over the concepts of imagination. That's something for another day though...

Quote:

So, your understanding of the symbol Unicorn might be by analogy and that is your understanding by having the symbols contained in the analogy grounded in experience. However, that understanding by analogy is only related to your potential understanding of the object Unicorn as far as your grounding of the symbol by analogy is intransient with the potential grounding of the symbol by experience.

No need to explain it... it's quite clear... and it seems reasonable. Of course, I also think it agrees with my earliest definitions of understanding! ;)

Quote:

I would say that if you were to kill all entities that can interact with the Universe in such a way as to have their behaviour affected intransiently when confronted with certain interactions, which were mass-subjectively labelled as "the colour white", then you would no longer have the colour white.

Agreed; the notion of colour would not exist as it relates to the internal representation (within the observer) of the physical properties of the emmission and perception of energy within a certain bandwidth. However, there does not appear to be any justification for the belief that the energy is no longer emmitted. Sure, I'm not around to prove its continued existence if I've just been wiped out. However the physical laws of the Universe and the nature of persistence of observable quantities suggests to me at least that if I were to die today, the white walls in my room would still exist... they just wouldn't be labelled as white by anyone, until a new observer came along (and then they might call them 'cream', or some other label of their choosing. That doesn't mean that the wall no longer exists or that photons are not being emmitted from the paint. You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that my house does not exist, since I'm at work and cannot see it at the moment.

Certainly, if we want to limit ourselves to the notion of pure subjective reality, then certainly there are issues with regards to the persistance of objects not within my current perception. This is also a really good AI problem; the Frame Problem.

Quote:

I'm simply saying the the human understanding of the colour white would no longer exist, so "white" would no longer exist.

Yes, we can agree that the symbol "white" doesn't exist, along with the 'human understanding' of "whiteness"

Quote:

I am not saying that the Universe would disappear on an objective level.

But isn't that what you're saying below? Or am I misreading it?

Quote:

You said "or the objects and events within the Universe would not have properties". I say there are no objects and event within the Universe without observers.

I cannot agree with that. There are ways of measuring "whiteness" that don't rely on humans for the measurement process, only for the translation of that measurement into the human understanding by giving it a label. Paint matching machines do this regularly. So presumably I can make a sensor to observe something that I cannot observe directly. According to my interpretation of your reasoning, you're saying that if I cannot observe it directly, it doesn't exist. So how could I make something to percieve something that doesn't exist?


I think that quantum wave theory gives us a reasonable view at this problem (even though it might not be what actually happens, quantum mechanics does predict states and events reasonably well, so it's a good model). Without an observer the wave function of a fundamental particle exists, but does not favour a single state; rather it describes a particle as possibly being in one of many states (just the same as a probability density function over a state variable). When an observer interacts with the wave function it collapses and an observation of a single state is possible. When the observer is not making an observation of the system, that doesn't mean that the particle doesn't exist, nor is the particle 'not it the observed state', but rather it is in all possible states. Those states are not defined by the observer either, but rather by the Universe. It is merely that the observer is only able to interact with the particle in a way as to be able to see it in only one state at a time. However, the observer can repeat their observation many times and observe the particle in many different states and by counting frequencies, can formulate a model of the wave function (Monte Carlo sampling). So the wave function certainly exists (because it produces observable states) and the observer can
model it and make predictions (about future observations) based on their model. If you remove the observer from this, that doesn't stop the wave function from existing (IMHO).

If you're not, however, saying that things don't objectively exist when you remove the observer (and I've misinterpreted you), then could you explain your hypothesis in a little more detail please so that I can work out what it is you are saying? ;

Thanks,

Timkin

i think things in this universe are like a giant fractal (chaotic?) not really, there is a sence about things, however i think we own our own sences, and on that line, we see things the way we want to.

Im interested in AI, after (if i ever) finish my base code want to work on something to that end. I will need to create either a virtual world or use the keyboard and mouse / usb cam / mic or what ever as sences and give it the ability to interact with those sences. however the state of the AI will be quite lame with out emotions to drive it. Thought, I believe thought to be whatever we find facinating or addictive, anything which we want. (those in search of a better answer might seek things not felt good about, however the driving sence to do what is right, good, in the interest of self is the same) I believe most think about what they want to. want is an emotion, want is synonymous with survival. emotions help us survive. hence its easy to see how they come about.

sorry if i seem hard to understand. ofcoarse understanding takes a certain level of context. one could not understand the moon if they had no idea where it was or what it looked like. understanding i think is a very relative term, so i could be wrong, which brings me to right and wrong, wow thats a big one, cheers.

I think what we believe is to the core or "root" (like root of F/S :) )of our understanding, which is why the truth is always hardest to ignore / why its the organization in which i will take my code.

WeSt CoaST :)

ohh yeah emotions are like life, they are persistant.
The ability to control ones self definitly a tall order to try and program though, the ability to change ones behavior, in lite of something better, obviously a reason why, but how does one actually reprogram themself. Something i need to work on personally as well. sometimes i wonder if i really exist :)

ohh yeah most importantly dont use control structures in ur code.

[Edited by - pcxmac on January 21, 2005 3:28:49 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Timkin Quote: You said "or the objects and events within the Universe would not have properties". I say there are no objects and event within the Universe without observers. I cannot agree with that. There are ways of measuring "whiteness" that don't rely on humans for the measurement process, only for the translation of that measurement into the human understanding by giving it a label. Paint matching machines do this regularly. So presumably I can make a sensor to observe something that I cannot observe directly. According to my interpretation of your reasoning, you're saying that if I cannot observe it directly, it doesn't exist. So how could I make something to percieve something that doesn't exist? ... If you're not, however, saying that things don't objectively exist when you remove the observer (and I've misinterpreted you), then could you explain your hypothesis in a little more detail please so that I can work out what it is you are saying? ;

Sure, I will try to explain here, because I'm sure we pretty much agree. When I said "there are no objects or events without observers" I meant it in the same way as when I said "there is no white without observers". The fundament is there, but it is a mistake to say that there is even energy or particles in it in any objective way. It just is. Energy and particles are still subjective human terms defined by our own innate perceptions of such quantities and are, again, no more objective than "white". Even if you can make a white detecting machine it is still only a white detection machine to human observers who define the colour white by their perceptions (their behaviour, essentially) and then build a machine that has certain behaviour when it undergoes similar stimulus to a human observer experiencing white. The machine's understanding of white is, again, not the same as the human understanding, even though it reacts under the same stimulus (not saying you thought otherwise).

In the end, what I'm saying is that if you can point at it, think about it, talk about it, measure it or perceive it, it's subjective reality. The fundament doesn't disappear when we turn our backs. The that-from-which-all-reality-springs still exists, it's just that all perception, all reality, is created second-by-second in/by your head.

Mike...still rolling off topic

There is no such thing as AI.

AI is a state in which a machine [un-natural being] can make a choice[to learn, to discard, etc], while it still has a choice not to take a decesion.

Just because you can make a machine to react to something doesnt make it intelligent, it makes it a program or slave.

AI is not possible because the prime factor for intelligence is morality.
You will be able to make a machine behave the way you want, allow it for change, but because it is you who allows it to change cannot be considered to be intelligence.

S-Eye

PS: The human being uses 12% of his brain while conceous

Quote:

Original post by Scared Eye There is no such thing as AI. AI is a state in which a machine [un-natural being] can make a choice[to learn, to discard, etc], while it still has a choice not to take a decesion. Just because you can make a machine to react to something doesnt make it intelligent, it makes it a program or slave.

And explain to me, if you will, why you feel you somehow have free will and are not just a program that's a slave to the rules of physics and just as deterministic (if a lot more complex) as a "hello world" program?

Quote:

Original post by Scared Eye AI is not possible because the prime factor for intelligence is morality. You will be able to make a machine behave the way you want, allow it for change, but because it is you who allows it to change cannot be considered to be intelligence.

Morality has nothing to do with intelligence. A person without morals can still be intelligent. Hitler was intelligent.

You can create a machine to learn as it acts, but, even so, learning is not necessary for intelligence. Take a fully grown human being and ask it a question. Without learning or changing more than a tiny amount (in fact, with some brain damaged individuals without short term memory, without changing in any significant way) the individual can be intelligent.

Quote:

Original post by Scared Eye PS: The human being uses 12% of his brain while conceous

This was a mistake made by neurophysiologists a long time ago. I believe you use most of your brain, most of the time.

Correct me if I am wrong, I think the differance between AI and us is that our minds rearange can change while a program can not directly change itself. It can change a data file but it can not optimize its own coding.

PS: Im in high school, should I take AP Psycology if i want to go into game development?

Quote:

Original post by chaosgame Correct me if I am wrong, I think the differance between AI and us is that our minds rearange can change while a program can not directly change itself. It can change a data file but it can not optimize its own coding. PS: Im in high school, should I take AP Psycology if i want to go into game development?

an ai can rearrange its own mind if we let it. just have it have the ability to rewrite itself, rprogram making a program. and eventually it will get smart enough to be able to completely remake itself better than we desinged/intended.

I think another factor to consider when thinking of the perspective of the artificial entity would be how would proper understanding be defined? We as humans define our own understanding based on our own experiences. For example, my little brother was born almost completely blind....he was incredibly nearsighted. So his understanding of 'seeing' was based on his own discrete experience. No one could tell him how he saw...only he knew how he saw. And whenever anyone asked him 'can you see', his answer would invariably be 'yes' because based on his experiences, he could. It was irrelevant to him that he couldn't see well, he only saw as he understood....and whenever he got his first pair of glasses, the look on his face was complete astoundment.

...but, my point is that his understanding of the properties of 'seeing' was completely different from that of someone with 'normal' vision. How would it be even possible for an artificial entity to 'update' its understanding of a particular property based on new experiences besides a simple mathematical comparison?


(really simplified example...bear with me)
another thing would be...It is obviously true that humans do not know everything there is to know. Imagine for a second that research were done and an understood property were to change. for example, imagine if what if the object known as 'tree' were no longer known as 'tree.' Imagine that tree became 'ball' and ball became 'tree.' and then imagine that there were one person who were not told that 'tree' was now 'ball' and vice versa, and no one ever specifically told him that the two had switched. After observation of people exhibiting knowledge of the switch, a person could deduce that a switch had been made...but its not like there's a formula to determine when the switch had been observed enough times to say that the individual understood that indeed a switch took place.

Now imagine the same scenario, but the only being that's "Not in the know" is an entity with AI. How would it be able to determine that a switch had taken place without specifically being programmed ahead of time that a certain number of observations of other people saying 'tree is ball. ball is tree' that it made the update of its understanding of the world? ...and if it had to be programmed when to know a switch were made, how is that artificial intelligence? To me, that is the intelligence of a specific programmer being represented in an artificial entity...that isn't the intelligence of an artificial entity.