Another object view - (was RE: copy yourself ?)

John W. Sarkela sarkela at sbcglobal.net
Wed May 28 14:35:49 UTC 2003


Wrong. Check my post from a few days ago.

Our only understanding of and access to reality is a simulation. Period.

You have no way of accessing reality other than an internal simulation. 
A simulation that organizes the patterns of changes in your sense 
organs into a coherent whole.

Unless of course, you have attained that Zen-like state of 
no-mind/no-distinction and have become one with all. But in that event, 
consider this a message from yourself to yourself reminding you that 
your sense of being in the world is a game being played in order see 
oneself.

:-}> John Sarkela

On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 11:37 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> Joel Shellman <joel at ikestrel.com> wrote:
> 	> Computational objects do not have mass;
> 	
> 	Of course they can:
> 	
> 	Transcript show: myMassiveObject mass.
> 	
> No, that's not mass.
> Abraham Lincoln is said to have originated this joke:
>
>     X.  How many legs does a dog have,
>         if you call a tail a leg?
>     Y.  Five.
>     X.  Wrong!  _Calling_ a tail a leg doesn't _make_ it a leg.
>
> An object can respond to a #mass message, but it can do that as
> often as you please, and it still will NOT have physical mass.
>
> 	> do not occupy space;
> 	
> 	Larger than we could possibly imagine (or smaller):
> 	
> 	Transcript show: myHugeObject volume.
> 	
> Again, just because an object SAYS it has a volume doesn't mean it
> DOES have a volume.  I'm not sure whether you are confusing
> *talking about* properties with actually possessing them
> (but no matter how often I _say_ "I have $1000000" it still isn't true)
> or whether you are confusing *simulating* properties with actually
> possessing them (but not matter how often I *pretend* to have a
> million dollars it still isn't true).
>
> 	> do not emit or absorb photons (so don't have colour);
> 	
> 	Any in the rainbow, or in any spectrum::
> 	
> 	Transcript show: myColourfulObject color.
> 	or
> 	myColourfulObject emitPhoton.
> 	
> The computer's screen can emit real photons.
> An object in the image can only talk about or simulate emitting
> photons.
> 	
> Was it Drew McDermott who wrote "Just because your AI program has
> a procedure called UNDERSTAND that doesn't mean it understands
> anything."
>
> 	> Even in Morphic, which gives a pretty good illusion of
> 	> reality, if you "drop" a morph, it doesn't fall.
> 	
>                                            vvvvvvvv
> 	It can do better than fall, it can simulate all sorts of potential 
> behaviors
>                                            ^^^^^^^^
> 	that would be "real" in any of a huge number of potential universes,
> 	including the one we're most familiar with.
> 	
> "Simulate" is the key word here.
>
> Nobody ever said that objects couldn't *simulate* real things.
> Obviously they can.  Obviously it is often very very useful to do so.
>
> But no matter how long you sit in the cockpit of a flight simulator,
> you're never going to leave the room.  Simulated flight isn't real
> flight.  Simulated mass isn't real mass.  Simulated falling isn't
> real falling.
>
> 	It's all about simulation.
>
> The whole POINT of simulation is that it is NOT REALITY, only LIKE it.
>
> And my point is that vast amounts of computation are not about
> simulating the physical world, so that for lots and lots of objects
> there is no point in even trying to simulate physical objects.
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list