From: Patrick van den Berg (cirandar@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 22:48:14 GMT
Hi Erin, Glenn,
Erin wrote:
> No we can have a machine that beeps if a heart rate goes
> below a certain rate so I would grant that the
> machine detected a low heart rate.
> Does this machine indicate when somebody is lieing?
> When I see pictures of this I always see somebody
> who is trained to intepret the readout decide whether
> the person is a lieing.
(Okay, to jump in this thread again:)
Yes, but that's not the problem. An artificial 'expert-system' could in
principle learn to 'judge' the readout as effective as human experts can
whether the person is lying or not. I don't know about lying detectors,
but think of chess computers- even moderately cheap programs available
now probably would beat you or me fairly easily.
But 'interpretation' then, that is to assign meaning to something. One
argument why a machine can't interpret something, or add meaning to it,
is that you can have two machines that do exactly the same thing, but
have switched outputs and all. For example, one computer (I know less
about these things in practice then I'd like to, but I know some of the
fundamentals) could have programs based on patterns such as "10011001",
but another could do the same thing but with exactly reversed patterns,
"01100110" in this example. Although the information-content of both
computers is exactly the same, and the computers can perform exactly the
same functions, their 'embodiment' is different, which could be in the
hardware electric streams to the left ("0") or to the right ("1") (or
something like that). The other way around is exactly as efficient, with
streams to the right ("0") and to the left ("1").
My point is, "interpreting" things is beyond merely
information-processing. In perception, Red is red to us, and blue is
blue to us. (We could name the color blue red, and red blue, but that's
not the point) We can't swap those color-experience- red and blue are
simply different 'values', and although colors stand in relation to
other colors, they have an own identity that's beyond 'labels' like 0 or
1.
in a similar vain, to 'interpret' something needs values that have their
own identity in the *value*-patterns. Merely *patterns* of 1's and 0's
lack value, because it does not matter in any way when you swap them.
> GlENN:When we read an outdoor thermometer, all we get
> >is an inorganic account of the temperature, and from this we infer
> how
> >hot or cold we'll feel when we step outside - a subjective biological
> >pattern.
>
> ERIN: WEll I agree there is a subjective and objective
> aspect to feeling cold.
Yes, I guess that's where it boils down to.
>
> GLENN: If we don't allow this human element, then we can all agree
> >that "no instrument can detect hot or cold", much less the President.
>
> ERIN: Well here is the point. We can set a machine
> to dectect when it is hot or cold (by beeping or whatever)
> but yeah that hot or cold is relative to us.
> I don't agree a machine can detect the President.
> It can detect a fingerprint. You would have to
> tell the machine what fingerprint is the President.
> So yes this 'human element' is what I thought was
> Pirsig's point so whats the prob?
>
The difference between 'detecting' fingerprints or whole presidents is a
matter of (quantitative) complexity, not of principle. (What the problem
is? Er...)
> >But let's see what we can deduce from Pirsig's statements:
> >1) biological patterns are objects outside our minds
> >2) the devil is a biological pattern
> >Conclusion: the devil is running around the earth, incarnate.
> >It's no wonder MOQ non-believers think the MOQ is spooky. It is.
> >Glenn
> >
>
>
> I find your reasoning spooky. This makes no sense to me.
It is spooky. An incarnate devil runnig around on earth... Yea, the most
important 'atom of life' seems to be carbon, at least on this planet.
Six neutrons, six protons, and six electrons. The Beast's Number can be
found everywhere if you search for it. I Read about names of poets for
example, which were 'analyzed' by some people, through calculations with
the letters of the names, with a=1, b=2, c=3 etc. To show the
arbitriarness (spelling?) of these calculations, would demand complex
mathematics, I fear. But a no-nonsense intellectual attitude would not
assign much meaning to these people searching and finding the Number of
the Beast. At least I'd wish to assume this is an example
of'self-forfilling-prophesy.
Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 22:48:41 GMT