From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 14:24:00 MDT
One could imagine an intelligence that relied upon
something like object-based programming versus command
syntax. (I only use this as a very rough analogy;
please feel free to suggest other possibilities.)
Sure, translations of specific problems and solution
sets between the two types of systems would be
possible, but often cumbersome. Those stuck in the
command syntax mode might find it hard to comprehend
the mindset of the other side and vice versa.
In RW, I find this very kind of frustrating interface
occurring rather frequently, as I often deal with SF
FANs as well as Mensans (with a high cross-over
between the groups). As I have discussed before here,
both groups exhibit a high prevalence of symptoms of
Asperger's Syndrome, with its similarities to autism.
Try to present ANY viewpoint to a group of FANs and at
least one of them will triumphantly find some syntax
error or ambiguity and parade it as a fatal flaw in
the whole idea.
Since it is almost impossible to present any idea
without some ambiguity, depending upon both the
listener's and the presenter's understanding of the
terms, this means that effectively, communication with
such people is nearly impossible, except in terms of
word games, trivia contests and the like, in which
they tend to take great delight, as this IS their
world. They live in the map, not the territory.
Opposed to that mindset, I have always found it
interesting to assume the presenter is correct and
then extropolate what kind of RW that would imply, as
well as what kind of spinoffs might result. When this
leads to absurdities, I do not immediately assume that
the presenter is an idiot, which is clearly the
starting mindset for many of the people mentioned
above, but rather that I have made a misinterpretation
of what he or she has said. I do not assume that the
words uttered are the totality of the idea being
presented, which is rarely - if ever - the case.
Internally, the flow of words in my mind, some subset
of which ends up represented on this media, comes from
a complex of visualizations and internal models,
orientated toward the purpose of the communication and
limited and focused by my understanding of the likely
or desired recipient. In part, my purpose is often to
clarify or objectify my own thinking. Being forced to
reduce thought to symbols is extraordinarily useful in
that respect. But, the words are not the thought, but
rather an abstract formulation of it.
So, imagine an SI that casually creates worlds of
creatures internally, modeling entire constellations
of earths, with all their cultures, etc., as a dream
in the mind of God, perhaps a trivial afterthought.
As one of those transient dream creatures, can we
really capture that perspective and model it
internally ourselves?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:25 MST