DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Maaaaaaaybe.The eminently functional binary system
It is only "correct" if you choose the right context.
Maaaaaaaybe.The eminently functional binary system
Let's get to the heart of the OP and this question...As I stated, one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result, if at all possible.
Only due to the vehemence of your rejection, I feel obliged to ask the context of your logic.Let's get to the heart of the OP and this question...
No. No. Nein and Oya, Nda, Ôda, Nde, K'amaj, C'am, Hókai, N...taj, Tsaa, Haw, Hawaa plus 500 more versions... Not true. One of these permutations is under no obligation to produce some kind of intelligent result, if at all possible.
Now that we've cleared that up... [mic drop]
Herein lies the problem....it seems to me...
....The mathematics can also be expressed as obligatory electro-magnetic values and relationships....
The potential for human or any other type of intelligence existed before these potetials were probabilistically expressed in reality in the many forms of ntelligent abilities in species.Herein lies the problem.
The onus lies on you to make a case that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..." and show your logic.
Until then, a simple 'no' (in any language) is where it stands by default.
I disagree. IMO, Universal mathmtical functions exised long before man came around and assigned a symbolic language to it/I though it was other way round...
I don't object to describing nature via a function, rather to the necessary, a priori imperative of artificial intelligence arising from expression of the operators. From post #2:Only due to the vehemence of your rejection, I feel obliged to ask the context of your logic.
Would ALL combinations of these operators produce artificial intelligence? One of them must?
I agree with the concept of "necessity" as an imperative, but there is an associated part to the equation. I believe the full expression is *necessity and sufficiency", which would indicate that not all available resources are required for specific functions, just a sufficient number and order, and lots of time.I don't object to describing nature via a function, rather to the necessary, a priori imperative of artificial intelligence arising from expression of the operators. From post #2:
That does not corroborate the claim that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..."The potential for human or any other type of intelligence existed before these potetials were probabilistically expressed in reality in the many forms of ntelligent abilities in species.
The proof Is in the pudding.!
I disagree. IMO, Universal mathmtical functions exised long before man came around and assigned a symbolic language to it/
Tell me,what came first; the tree or the symbolic word *tree*?
That does not corroborate the claim that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..."
What you're essentially saying is one of the permutations of pebbles on a beach must form the image of the Mandelbrot Set.
t need not.
You must look at this from different persprctives.May be, I do not which came first.
BUT..
t, r, e, e are used to express tree......'tree' is not used to define t, r, e, e.
So maths define and formulate a physical phenomenon, it is not that a physical phenomenon describes maths.
Well, you keep wanting that to be true, but that doesn't make it so.You must look at this from different persprctives.
Human mathematical symbols are descriptive of natural mathematical functions and values. For every human mathematical symbol, there was a prior unknown (unidentified) natural mathematical funnction, value, or equation.
If the shoe fits...........Well, you keep wanting that to be true, but that doesn't make it so.
Even the title of that video is silly. Math as a tool for understanding nature is not a "hidden secret".
Well ... unless his audience is entirely comprised of preschoolers...
After thought.
If we could build an AI with the capacity for a form of awe and discovery would go a long way to "species".
What are you using as a baseline for a species?Hmm... how does metal and a program become a " species " ?
What are you using as a baseline for a species?
River makes a good point.Life that can breed with like life forms .
You ?
If we could build an AI with a form of awe, we would already have a sentient entity.If we could build an AI with the capacity for a form of awe and discovery would go a long way to a self-sentient "species".