Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Infinity: the ultimate barrier?

Expand Messages
  • James Bliss
    Now you have gotten to the point of absurdity. How do you know that someone/thing cannot perceive infinity when you do not even provide a definition of it.
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Now you have gotten to the point of absurdity. How do you know that
      someone/thing cannot perceive infinity when you do not even provide a
      definition of it. Perhaps they are perceiving it but the sophistry in
      this discussion on the side against that possibility is prevent that
      side from perceiving it.

      What is 'absolute infinity' - define that and then the discussion can go
      somewhere. Without that definition this discussion is a complete dead end.


      Donald Jacques wrote:
      > Not so fast, J Heery,
      >
      > > I can perceive infinity, for example infinite time, so your
      > > theory is wrong.
      >
      > First, by the definition of infinity, we do not have a basis for
      > a relative measurement that could provide a foundation for quantifying
      > any perception of infinity. Any such presentation is therefore subjective
      > and cannot be verified by others.
      >
      > With that being said, how MIGHT we prove your point, that you are indeed
      > perceiving infinity and not some incredible, as yet unmeasurable distance.
      >
      >
    • J Heery
      Here s another example of infinity in the c programming language. #include int main() { for(;;) printf( to infinity ); /* we never get here */
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's another example of infinity in the c programming language.

        #include <stdio.h>

        int main()
        {
        for(;;)
        printf("to infinity");

        /* we never get here */
        printf("and beyond!");
        return 0;
        }

        See it's not a difficult concept.

        --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Donald Jacques
        <djmitzlplick@...> wrote:
        >
        > Not so fast, J Heery,
        >
        > > I can perceive infinity, for example infinite time, so your
        > > theory is wrong.
        >
        > First, by the definition of infinity, we do not have a basis for
        > a relative measurement that could provide a foundation for
        quantifying
        > any perception of infinity. Any such presentation is therefore
        subjective
        > and cannot be verified by others.
        >
        > With that being said, how MIGHT we prove your point, that you are
        indeed
        > perceiving infinity and not some incredible, as yet unmeasurable
        distance.
        >
        > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "d.thanassas"
        > <d.thanassas@> wrote:
        > >
        > > AI cognitive models of knowledge acquisition, depend on physical
        > > sensory input
        >
        > True enough . . .
        >
        > > which is then "translated" into mental schemata.
        >
        > Ok.
        >
        > > Reasoning models take these mental schemata and, after the
        > > application of various operands, render new schemata which, in
        > > an interactive AI system, are then tested against new sensory
        > > input, resulting in modifications/corrections/enhancements.
        >
        > Depending on the system, ok.
        >
        > > As a consequence, we cannot perceive, induce or reason about
        > > anything that does NOT have a basis on raw sensory input.
        >
        > The correct statement might be that "The AI cannot
        perceive . . . "
        >
        > To assert limitations on human intelligence or capabilities on
        the
        > basis of human-based technologies is a dangerous position to take.
        > First because while selected technologies can perform better than
        > their human counterparts, for the most part, no technology to date
        > has ever even approached a fraction of the estimated potential of
        > the human intelligence (read brain, and learning ability).
        >
        > > Actual infinity does NOT exist in nature.
        >
        > Can you demonstrate this, or is this a subjective conclusion on
        > your part? Use care when making empirical statements - assure you
        > can back them up with experiential/observational data.
        >
        > It is at this point that the logic begins to get muddled.
        > As I say above, without empirical data to support some measure of
        > infinity we cannot compare it with anything else - therefore any
        > assessment as to its reality or un-reality is subjective and
        > unproveable.
        >
        > dj
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Looking for earth-friendly autos?
        > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • J Heery
        infinity isn t a distance, it s a concept which could be applied to distances but also other things, like for example time as mentioned earlier. I don t need
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          infinity isn't a distance, it's a concept which could be applied to
          distances but also other things, like for example time as mentioned
          earlier.
          I don't need my perceptions to be verified by others, i perceive them
          without their help.
          How could I prove that anyone else has a perception of anything even
          for example something simple like a kettle. They could tell me they
          know what a kettle is, but that doesn't prove they do. I'd have to be
          inside their head in a metaphysical way to truly know. Therefore, the
          issue of proving what i think i know to others is bunken.
          With regard to an earlier point that infinity doesn't occur in nature
          and therefore can't be perceived. Taxes don't occur in nature...

          --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Donald Jacques
          <djmitzlplick@...> wrote:
          >
          > Not so fast, J Heery,
          >
          > > I can perceive infinity, for example infinite time, so your
          > > theory is wrong.
          >
          > First, by the definition of infinity, we do not have a basis for
          > a relative measurement that could provide a foundation for
          quantifying
          > any perception of infinity. Any such presentation is therefore
          subjective
          > and cannot be verified by others.
          >
          > With that being said, how MIGHT we prove your point, that you are
          indeed
          > perceiving infinity and not some incredible, as yet unmeasurable
          distance.
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.