Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 13:53:22 MST
> 1) Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of "polyphonic reality" (introduced in his
> analysis of Dostoevskian fiction). Polyphonic reality is a kind of reality
> inbetween objective & subjective reality -- a reality composed of multiple
> interpretations, all interpreting each other...
I did some brief Googling about this, e.g.
http://www.geocities.com/yazdanpour/y-ch2.htm . From what I understand, this is
more or less equivalent to what I called co-realities, with the reader's mind
existing in a super-reality. In practical terms what this means is that any
intelligence that is operating in these realities at either of these two levels
can only cognize or recognize elements of the reality that they are in that are
translated or projected into the observed reality, which is always derived from
your current reality. Characters represented in the narration in a polyphonic
novel cannot possibly comprehend what is taking place from the other realities,
only the reader of the polyphonic novel can. Programmers creating an artificial
intelligence in the computer's reality of digital computation, but the computer
on it's own cannot understand the programmer's reality, without some sort of
technology provided by the programmer.
> 2) Some theories of quantum-electrodynamics in curved spacetime (one of the
> many not quite successful approaches to grand unified physics). In these
> theories, different observers in different reference frames may literally
> perceive different realities: a particle may be existent in one observer's
> reality, but nonexistent in another's. (This is a much stronger kind of
> relativity than one finds in special or general relativity theory proper.)
Interesting, but it is still a defined subset of realities that can exist in
what I think of as the Universe or omniverse. In my meta-reality definition,
its purpose would be to derive sub-realities from it but designing them to
allow information to be translated from one reality to another.
> The idea of "finding aliens everywhere" once we can perceive alternate
> realities, is related to my idea that when minds (e.g. AI's) become
> sufficiently intelligent, they may find a way to access domains of being
> beyond our physical universe (or beyond the concept of "physical universe"
I think you are correct in this statement, and the solution to finding the way
across domains or realities i.e. from humans to digital computers, is to either
define a mapping to translate events that can be parsed forward and back (the
hard way), or understand the process of how humankind learns stuff and program
that into the digital computer and let it run, i.e. seed AI. Although this is
easier to do, we still don't have the communication tools or languages, formal
or informal, to fully express this process although some humans are much better
than it than others of course.
> I tried once to create a unified physics theory in which each particle is
> viewed as the Feynman sum of "every possible subjective reality's view of
> that particle." I never finished formulating the theory, and decided that
> trying to create "real AI" was a more critical way for me to spend my
On a slightly personal note, how much knowledge have you personally gained from
watching and teaching your own children from babies, and in what ways has this
affected your work in learning processes? Also, I will not dare to assume that
studying the learning processes can only be done by observing babies, but also
old people, and even senile people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT