Self knowledge
Locked
 
|
Hi, all.
What a splendid set of responses. Robert, when the memory of a computer is over taxed and it starts screwing up the display an ignoring commands , isnt it behaving emotionally. Russell, you hoisted my on my own Wittegensteinian petard. Funny how I always forget about language. but hang on a moment: if language is just word games, then it seems to me word games are just the sort of thing that computers ought to be able to produce. giles: I am glad you raised the issue of context dependency, which I would see as just the same as the problem of point=of=viewedness or, as the philosophers call it, intentionality. I guess you would agree that computers would have not problem doing context dependancy, right BUT STILL, EVERYBODY. INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW. WHEN I ASK A DIAGNOSTIC PROGRAM TO TELL ME HOW MY COMPUTER IS DOING, HOW DOES IT DO THAT? WHAT CUES DOES IT USE./ nick Nicholas Thompson nickthompson at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: <Friam-request at redfish.com> > To: <Friam at redfish.com> > Date: 11/28/2005 10:26:06 PM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 29, Issue 48 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > Friam at redfish.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > Friam-request at redfish.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > Friam-owner at redfish.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. A friend has sent you this Dilbert comic (doug at parrot-farm.net) > 2. Re: The possibility of self knowledge (Nicholas Thompson) > 3. Re: The possibility of self knowledge (Giles Bowkett) > 4. Re: The possibility of self knowledge (Giles Bowkett) > 5. Re: The possibility of self knowledge (Robert Holmes) > 6. Re: The possibility of self knowledge (Nicholas Thompson) > 7. Re: The possibility of self knowledge (Russell Standish) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:40:20 -0500 (EST) > From: doug at parrot-farm.net > Subject: [FRIAM] A friend has sent you this Dilbert comic > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <27061267.1133213980560.JavaMail.webadmin at umweb5> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi! A Dilbert comic strip has been sent to you from doug at parrot-farm.net. > > To see your comic, visit Dilbert.com here: > http://www.comics.com/webmail/ViewStrip?key=41373452-9de28363eb-FF > > If you cannot access the page by clicking on the URL above, just copy and URL, as it may be broken up into two lines. > > You'll be able to view the message on our server for the next two weeks so print it out if you'd like to save it for posterity or sentimental value. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:08:25 -0500 > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > To: "Russell Standish" <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > Cc: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <380-22005112292825353 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Russell, > > Thanks for the answer. It was just a little too compressed for my poor > brain. What does AFAIK mean? Ohhhh. I got it. The "F" put me off the > scent. > > Not clear to me why you are so sure the question is irrelevant. What is it > that you think you are doing when I ask you "How are you?" that a computer > couldnt do? > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > nickthompson at earthlink.net > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 11/28/2005 10:29:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > > > > Perhaps nobody really understood your question. AFAIK, computers be it > > Windoze, Mac or Linux are not self-aware. Therefore question as you've > > posed it has no meaning. > > > > Perhaps you mean a formal system capable of introspection? You could > > look at some of the stuff Bruno Marchal does, as it is all about > > questioning a Loebian machine. I'm sure you could ask a Loebian > > machine about itself, and it will be able to tell you something! > > > > Cheers > > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:52:11PM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > My apologies for reposting this, but I buggered the subject line the > first time and I really am hoping for an answer from SOMEBODY. > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > All the time I was out there I never thought to ask you the following > > > question. As a behaviorist psychologist, I have always had doubts > > > the notion of self knowledge, in the sense that we know the true causes > of > > > our own actions (which we would have to do if "we" were the causes of > our > > > own action, eh? ) One of the reasons I went out to SFE was to get the > > > answer to the question, what is it that a computer gives you when you > ask a > > > computer to tell you about itself. On my understanding, what you learn > > > about is in fact the state of a specialisted subsystem designed to > monitor > > > the whole which gets you an answer on the basis of reports from > specialized > > > sub-sub systems...."cues" if you will. So in my gloom, I am sitting > > > looking at my CP monitor in my task bar varying from 10 percent to 17 > > > percent. So, that is not my CPU telling me about my CPU, right. If not, > > > who is it and on the basis of what incomplete knowledge is it telling me > > > what the CPU is doing. > > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe > > > Wed Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, maps, etc. at > http://www.friam.org > > > > -- > > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) > > Mathematics 0425 253119 (") > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au > > Australia > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:19:35 -0700 > From: Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > Cc: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: > <2d81dedb0511281819hcc1d0dbw8b8cb80494a2d7fa at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > One of the reasons I went out to SFE was to get the > > answer to the question, what is it that a computer gives you when you > > computer to tell you about itself. On my understanding, what you learn > > about is in fact the state of a specialisted subsystem designed to monitor > > the whole which gets you an answer on the basis of reports from specialized > > sub-sub systems...."cues" if you will. > > I think that's pretty much what happens when you ask a human being to > tell you about themselves, too. Except under unusual situations, you > don't get the subconscious mind handing over every single relevant > memory the person has ever had; you get a context-sensitive report > summarizing relevant data. If I ask a casual acquaintance what's going > on their lives, they'll probably tell me something trivial; if you ask > somebody close, you get more data, some of it potentially quite deep. > If a doctor asks you how you're feeling, he doesn't mean "how's your > relationship?" he means "has your arm fallen off?" > > > > On 11/27/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My apologies for reposting this, but I buggered the subject line the > > time and I really am hoping for an answer from SOMEBODY. > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > All the time I was out there I never thought to ask you the following > > question. As a behaviorist psychologist, I have always had doubts about > > the notion of self knowledge, in the sense that we know the true causes of > > our own actions (which we would have to do if "we" were the causes of our > > own action, eh? ) One of the reasons I went out to SFE was to get the > > answer to the question, what is it that a computer gives you when you ask a > > computer to tell you about itself. On my understanding, what you learn > > about is in fact the state of a specialisted subsystem designed to monitor > > the whole which gets you an answer on the basis of reports from specialized > > sub-sub systems...."cues" if you will. So in my gloom, I am sitting here > > looking at my CP monitor in my task bar varying from 10 percent to 17 > > percent. So, that is not my CPU telling me about my CPU, right. If not, > > who is it and on the basis of what incomplete knowledge is it telling me > > what the CPU is doing. > > > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe > > Wed Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, maps, etc. at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > -- > Giles Bowkett = Giles Goat Boy > http://www.gilesgoatboy.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:19:35 -0700 > From: Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > Cc: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: > <2d81dedb0511281819hcc1d0dbw8b8cb80494a2d7fa at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > One of the reasons I went out to SFE was to get the > > answer to the question, what is it that a computer gives you when you > > computer to tell you about itself. On my understanding, what you learn > > about is in fact the state of a specialisted subsystem designed to monitor > > the whole which gets you an answer on the basis of reports from specialized > > sub-sub systems...."cues" if you will. > > I think that's pretty much what happens when you ask a human being to > tell you about themselves, too. Except under unusual situations, you > don't get the subconscious mind handing over every single relevant > memory the person has ever had; you get a context-sensitive report > summarizing relevant data. If I ask a casual acquaintance what's going > on their lives, they'll probably tell me something trivial; if you ask > somebody close, you get more data, some of it potentially quite deep. > If a doctor asks you how you're feeling, he doesn't mean "how's your > relationship?" he means "has your arm fallen off?" > > > > On 11/27/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My apologies for reposting this, but I buggered the subject line the > > time and I really am hoping for an answer from SOMEBODY. > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > All the time I was out there I never thought to ask you the following > > question. As a behaviorist psychologist, I have always had doubts about > > the notion of self knowledge, in the sense that we know the true causes of > > our own actions (which we would have to do if "we" were the causes of our > > own action, eh? ) One of the reasons I went out to SFE was to get the > > answer to the question, what is it that a computer gives you when you ask a > > computer to tell you about itself. On my understanding, what you learn > > about is in fact the state of a specialisted subsystem designed to monitor > > the whole which gets you an answer on the basis of reports from specialized > > sub-sub systems...."cues" if you will. So in my gloom, I am sitting here > > looking at my CP monitor in my task bar varying from 10 percent to 17 > > percent. So, that is not my CPU telling me about my CPU, right. If not, > > who is it and on the basis of what incomplete knowledge is it telling me > > what the CPU is doing. > > > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe > > Wed Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, maps, etc. at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > -- > Giles Bowkett = Giles Goat Boy > http://www.gilesgoatboy.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:28:08 -0700 > From: Robert Holmes <rholmes62 at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <857770150511281828s51c0d940t1025f26ccbe4b64e at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On 11/28/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > What is it > > that you think you are doing when I ask you "How are you?" that a > > couldnt do? > > > > Nick > > > Responding emotionally, not deterministically > > Robert > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:23 -0500 > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > To: robert at holmesacosta.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group" <Friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <380-220051122924923768 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Robert, > > Now we are getting somewhere.! > ! But I need to know, oddly enough, what you mean by deterministic. I term, all complex systems are deterministic, but are unfathomable because of their exquisite dependency on initial conditions. > > Am I wrong? > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > nickthompson at earthlink.net > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Holmes > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Sent: 11/28/2005 9:28:10 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > > > > > On 11/28/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote: > <snip> > What is it > that you think you are doing when I ask you "How are you?" that a > couldnt do? > > Nick > > Responding emotionally, not deterministically > > Robert > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:26:00 +1100 > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > To: Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > Cc: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <20051129032559.GC375 at mpi.NSW.bigpond.net.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > What I said was I didn't really understand your question. For example, > if I ask my computer "How are you?", it responds: > > bash: How: command not found > > So, my computer, for one does not understand this question. But then > my computer doesn't understand English. If I ask Manuel from Fawlty > Towers the same question, his answer will be "Que" (sorry accents and > upside down question marks are beyond my keyboard :( ) > > Sure - I'm being flippant here - I know this is not what you mean, so > I'm guessing at some alternative versions of what you might mean - you ask > the computer to report on itself, this seems to beg the question of > whether computers have a self. I know of no program that does, > certainly not Linux, MacOS and Windows. > > Perhaps you mean a status report on hardware, software, or whatever, eg > question "acpi" produces: > > Battery 1: unknown, 100% > > which while cryptic, means that the computer is "feeling" fully charged. > > If I open up emacs, type the command "doctor", then ask emacs that > question I get: > > I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time > you are finished talking, type RET twice. > > How are you? > > I'm ok. Tell me about yourself. > > This is basically the old Eliza program, of which I'm sure you're > > But I don't think any of this is analogous to a human being reporting on how > they're feeling. > > Cheers > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:08:25PM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Russell, > > > > Thanks for the answer. It was just a little too compressed for my poor old > > brain. What does AFAIK mean? Ohhhh. I got it. The "F" put me off the > > scent. > > > > Not clear to me why you are so sure the question is irrelevant. What is it > > that you think you are doing when I ask you "How are you?" that a computer > > couldnt do? > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied > > Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com> > > > Date: 11/28/2005 10:29:51 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The possibility of self knowledge > > > > > > Perhaps nobody really understood your question. AFAIK, computers be it > > > Windoze, Mac or Linux are not self-aware. Therefore question as you've > > > posed it has no meaning. > > > > > > Perhaps you mean a formal system capable of introspection? You could > > > look at some of the stuff Bruno Marchal does, as it is all about > > > questioning a Loebian machine. I'm sure you could ask a Loebian > > > machine about itself, and it will be able to tell you something! > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:52:11PM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > > My apologies for reposting this, but I buggered the subject line the > > first time and I really am hoping for an answer from SOMEBODY. > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > All the time I was out there I never thought to ask you the > > > > question. As a behaviorist psychologist, I have always had doubts about > > > > the notion of self knowledge, in the sense that we know the true causes > > of > > > > our own actions (which we would have to do if "we" were the causes of > > our > > > > own action, eh? ) One of the reasons I went out to SFE was to get the > > > > answer to the question, what is it that a computer gives you when you > > ask a > > > > computer to tell you about itself. On my understanding, what you learn > > > > about is in fact the state of a specialisted subsystem designed to > > monitor > > > > the whole which gets you an answer on the basis of reports from > > specialized > > > > sub-sub systems...."cues" if you will. So in my gloom, I am sitting here > > > > looking at my CP monitor in my task bar varying from 10 percent to 17 > > > > percent. So, that is not my CPU telling me about my CPU, right. If not, > > > > who is it and on the basis of what incomplete knowledge is it telling me > > > > what the CPU is doing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > > > nickthompson at earthlink.net > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe > > > > Wed Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, maps, etc. at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > > > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > > > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > > > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > > > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > > > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > > > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) > > > Mathematics 0425 253119 (") > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au > > > Australia > > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > > > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) > Mathematics 0425 253119 (") > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au > Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20051129/27ed2341 /attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 29, Issue 48 > ************************************* |
|
|
It is all done through mysterious things called APIs (Application
Programming Interfaces). For example, with the battery thingy, the battery circuitry includes a monitor of the battery's voltage, and of the current being drawn out if it. This is converted to a set of bits via an electronic circuit called an Analogue-to-Digital Converter (ADC) available on a processor port somewhere (If the CPU issues a Port read instruction, it gets the value - sometimes these things are memory mapped, and it just reads a memory location). The laptop manufacturer will provide a machine language subroutine as part of the computer's BIOS (Basic Input Output System), which has been standardized across all laptops (the relevant standard here being called ACPI - sorry don't know the acronym expansion). Some Linux kernel developer, or perhaps it's a libc developer, will provide program a library of C-language callable routines that call the appropriate BIOS routines. Both the BIOS, and the C-language interface are examples of APIs. Your application - say the acpi query command, or the fancy graphical utility showing battery level links to this library, and obtains the relevant information, which it turns into text, or an image depending on how it wants to display it. Hope this answers your question. If not, I've wasted a lot of time on a misunderstanding :) Cheers On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 01:14:11AM -0500, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > BUT STILL, EVERYBODY. INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW. WHEN I ASK A > DIAGNOSTIC PROGRAM TO TELL ME HOW MY COMPUTER IS DOING, HOW DOES IT DO > THAT? WHAT CUES DOES IT USE./ > > nick > > Nicholas Thompson > nickthompson at earthlink.net > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On 11/29/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> BUT STILL, EVERYBODY. INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW. WHEN I ASK A > DIAGNOSTIC PROGRAM TO TELL ME HOW MY COMPUTER IS DOING, HOW DOES IT DO > THAT? WHAT CUES DOES IT USE./ It doesn't use ANY "Cues". What we have had there is a human being who knows (or has access to) the details of the operation of a particular kind of complicated machine. This machine has both "hardware"--the hard, physical components of the machine, and "software"--the less tangible components that are said to "run on" the machine. Generally, software is really the effect of another physical, but tiny, interior, not-visible, set of components--the net effect of millions of tiny switches and electrons and things in various and varying states. No matter. To allow users of this machine to "diagnose" problems it may have, a human being builds a device (usually a "software" device that runs on the machine itself) that is used to "inspect" a set of well-known properties of the machine. Some of these properties are "state information" derived from the machine's software. Some of these properties are states from the machine's hardware, that, by way of additional hardware and software, have had those properties translated into a form that the diagnostic software can use. For example, a device may use a thermometer inside the machine, the device includes hardware components that convert temperatures into varying voltages. Another part of this device uses these voltages to affect the state of a series of tiny switches, The states of this set of switches (on or off) can be accessed by the software of the machine, which then interprets the state of these switches as a number, and this number is interpreted as the temperature inside the machine. This number is (all with software, created by a human being, remember) compared to other known numbers to determine whether the machine is too hot or too cold to operate properly. So, the human-assembled device ("diagnostic software") used to inspect the state of the machine is very specific to the kind of machine, both the hardware and software. Indeed, such a diagnostic machine is incapable of taking "cues" at all--it can ony inspect and report states and conditions (or kinds of states and sets of conditions) that the human operator has predicted may occur and has specifically provided for in this "diagnostic device". The diagnostic program has access to the state of the machine at a very low level. The interpretation of the state information is performed by a human being, having built the rules of interpretation into a device. (does a ruler known what inches are? No. But the person who *designed* the ruler did.) To compare this to human beings, consider this: When asked, "How are you?" you can draw on your general "awareness" of your condition, and say, "Fine.". You are NOT aware of your exact blood-oxygen level, heart-rate, and brain-chemistry, and you don't need to be. You have very high-level awareness of the overall state of your body, and (pretending for a moment that it is a seperate thing) your mind. If you were a computer, your O2 level, heart BPM, brain-chemistry, and other low-level state information is ALL you would "be aware" of. You would require a diagnostic program to gather and interpret these properties (states) to output a statement like "I'm Fine." That the machine that is being inspected is also the platform on which the diagnostic device runs is just one of the amazing aspects of the "universal turing machine" that the electronic computer is. But the overlap and co-existance of the device being inspected and the device doing the inspecting does not make either device "self-aware"... yet. How was that? ~~James |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On 11/28/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > <snip> > Robert, when the memory of a computer is over taxed and it starts screwing > up the display an ignoring commands , isnt it behaving emotionally. > <snip> No it's not. For the analogy "human emotion is kinda the same as 'computer' emotion" to hold, then I would only display emotion when I - like the overworked computer - am in some sense resource-limited. In fact that's not the case, and I can display emotions whether I'm overworked, underworked, stressed, unstressed, whatever. And because "computer emotion" only ever appears when the computer is resource-limited then it's probably not a good idea to call what it's displaying an emotion. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20051129/d94de586/attachment.htm |
|
|
On 11/29/05, Robert Holmes <rholmes62 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/28/05, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote: > > <snip> > > Robert, when the memory of a computer is over taxed and it starts screwing > > up the display an ignoring commands , isnt it behaving emotionally. > > <snip> > > > No it's not. For the analogy "human emotion is kinda the same as 'computer' > emotion" to hold, then I would only display emotion when I - like the > overworked computer - am in some sense resource-limited. In fact that's not > the case, and I can display emotions whether I'm overworked, underworked, > stressed, unstressed, whatever. And because "computer emotion" only ever > appears when the computer is resource-limited then it's probably not a good > idea to call what it's displaying an emotion. > Right, I would say that the computer ought to be displaying some emotion when it gets into the typical catatonia that Windows achieves. A human starts to get upset when the task load gets overtaxing, and that affect acts as a "cue" to shift priorities. Windows, on the other hand, doesn't get upset, it just blithely plows into the impossible task load and stops responding to input, stops updating the screen, & c. until it gets its internal state sorted out or blue screens. -- rec -- |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |