From: Patrick McCuller (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 22 2000 - 11:19:52 MST
> Perfection is born from an almost instinctual awareness of previous
> experience, which is what we call wisdom. So I see how wisdom and
> perfection are related. But the "superintelligent supermind" has more than
> instinctual awareness of the past, but possesses an intrinsic and
> awareness of the past. Therefore your argument,
> "Having compressed, we no longer have access to what we originally
> experienced, only to the compressed form. We have lost some information.",
> does not apply.
To possess an 'intrinsic and simultaneous' awareness of the past...
In order to approach the problem of perception by super intelligence, we have
to abandon much of our own experience and assumptions... when we talk about
humans remembering, or the 'past for me', we have a set of assumptions. My
past is my own - directly experienced by my hardware, in a non-Platonic
reality sense. My past is generally accessible, not blotted out randomly or in
pieces. And much more.
A little prosopopeia from a machine intelligence (super or not):
- Some of my memories are inherited.
- Some of my memories are borrowed.
- Some of my memories are pure fabrications, constructed 'after the fact' or
even 'before the fact' by me or someone else for various purposes.
- Some of my memories are actually events occurring simultaneously with
- Some of my memories represent future events, either in the sense that I am
operating with recorded sensory input, or in the sense that they are the
product of some form of time travel.
- Some of my memories are 'live', shared, or changing in manners outside of
- Some of my memories have been intentionally deleted, encoded, or
- Some of my memories are contradictory.
This is just the beginning, and it begs for more questions. What is memory
for machine intelligence? Is it feasible to record all internal states and
sensory input, and even if it is, is it feasible to 'experience' all of it
simultaneously, or to have an 'intrinsic and simultaneous awareness of all of
it? My instinct tells me that the information and the 'awareness' of it must
both necessarily be lossy. There may be no way to correlate every 'known fact'
with every other, let alone do it in real time.
> With peace,
> Alicia Madsen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT