From: Mike Dougherty (msd001@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2008 - 22:36:55 MDT
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin@rawbw.com> wrote:
> Well, could you have snipped a lot of the foregoing I wonder?
> In addition to your ghastly HTML, I'm having some trouble here
> knowing what we've agreed to and what we haven't, and, alas,
> have not been snipping very conscientiously myself.
>
> P.S. Sorry, as I explained, for not snipping more. It will be a miracle
> if anyone bothers reading this whole thing except you and me.
Sorry about the html, I thought I had turned that off in gmail. It
probably also explains why so few of my posts get responses. Thanks
for the reminder.
I think we've agreed to many things. That's my seriously snipped summary. :)
I'm happy to clear the slate and focus on this:
I understand there may be value in retaining atomic details of every
transaction. The transaction record may be later mined for further
patterns that were not observed from an initial investigation.
I offer this scenario: Your wife asks how your day was. You say, "It
was fine" (because you really don't care to relive your day to provide
the details) You then realize that what she was really asking was,
"Are you going to ask me about MY day" so you reciprocate with, "And
how was your day?" Now tell me, what amount of data do you record
from the next 20 minutes of downloading she attempts to convey? I
believe you would in-principle say that you have recorded every nuance
of that 20 minutes. You might honestly say that you absorbed the
relevant bits and could tell me the "gist" of it were I to ask you.
She probably would say you weren't paying attention at all. OK, I
don't know if you have a wife or are a good listener, etc. It's
contrived in 2nd person so you might more easily identify with it.
If the physical universe real-time has an effectively unlimited
resolution and bandwidth (granted: a debatable assumption) You face
death of your human body. You can be uploaded with the following
limitation on technology. The bandwidth to memory is a fixed constant
(let's say due to electromagnetic storage constraints). However, the
bandwidth bringing data into your 'brain' can exceed the bandwidth to
memory by several orders of magnitude (it's 100% optical)
Do you tune your input rate down in order to accurately "remember"
everything you perceive?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT