From: J. Maxwell Legg (income@ihug.co.nz)
Date: Sat Sep 26 1998 - 23:13:15 MDT
Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> At 12:26 PM 9/27/98 +1200, J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
>
> >Systems need to change and they need to be able to anticipate their own
> >future behavior or change and the constructions that permit them to see
> >themselves across some stages of change. My gut feeling is that zero
> >can't do this.
>
> IAN: Change is defined by its displacement from zero
> change. If a system anticipates its change, it must
> use "no change" as a hypothetical point of measure
> the deviation from which defines a state of change.
> So zero is implicit in the measurement you speak of.
>
That's a tricky definition of change but it's not the only one, e.g.,
FPGA circuits can be made to work without ever using zero.
"One major disadvantage of the Babylonian system however was their lack
of a zero.
This meant that numbers did not have a unique representation but
required the
context to make clear whether 1 meant 1, 61, 3601, etc. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Babylonian_and_Egyptian.html
How I intend to use this analogy in my AI model is by activating the
constructions implied by the "1, 61, 3601, etc. " and then simply
promote the context that eventually causes feedback; without the need to
compare thread results. Massively parallel Internet computers converging
the results of Ingrid's independent component analysis will soon
determine if this approach is valid. If I find evidence that the
Babylonian system can't implement an AI then I'll abandon my quest for
artificial consciousness. Here I'm just using "Babylonian" to refer to
my continuous Ingrid amathematical approach.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:37 MST