From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: The Complexity Required for intelligence
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:43:03 GMT


In article <1992Dec15.225724.6418@sarah.albany.edu> ,
djb85@thor.albany.edu (Donald J. Byrd) writes:

>

Exactly, I couldn't agree more.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to refer back to my article
<BzBK0M.J5L@iat.holonet.net> (complexity required for intelligence, cubed
entity, etc) and make a course correction.

One way of visualizing multidimensional arrays is a cubicle construction of
cubes.

A one dimensional array could be visualized as a line of cubes.
A two dimensional array could be visualized as a square sheet of cubes.
A three dimensional array could be visualized as a cube composed of cubes.
A four dimensional array could be visualized as a line of cubical 3D
arrays.
....

Thus time could be represented as the fourth dimension in this series as a
line of 3D cubes, and that makes it easy to program on a computer, but....

This kind of model for time simply doesn't pass the Easlon test.

It makes good sense from the outside objective point of view, but it
doesn't past muster on the subjective side.  I simply do not visualize time
subjectively as a line of cubes out there somewhere.

Subjectively I don't have any problem with seeing myself in the middle of a
structure of concentric cubes, it's just a matter of drawing lines out
there for my coordinate system.  (and yes I admit that drawing lines out
there is beginning to creep into the world of objectivity, but as long as
I'm at the center I can still be subjective about it).

The problem is "time".

Now for the Easlon theory of time.  This theory should have been
elaborately explained by others, and am open to feedback on the subject.

I think the subjective experience of time is based on movement, or least
change (as in change of intensity of a sensory phenomenon).  

The primative element that we have to work with here is change, not time.

Time comes into the picture when we start to make that transition from
subjective to objective.

For example, if you see someone dancing, and you want to learn to do the
dance.  You start with the smooth dynamic movement, and you break in down
into steps.  Each step is a static body position or an elemental movement
(step forward with your left foot), which takes place at a particular point
in a sequence of steps.  

The whole of objective reality (I say) is the result of people analyzing
their subjective dynamic experience and breaking it down into static
concepts for communication to others.  

As receivers, we store the static concepts as facts or observations, each
in it's own little cubby hole on the rack of objective coordinates.  When
we get to the point where we can use one of those facts, we take it out and
integrate it into out subjective reality.

The sequence of possible states for these stored gems is what gives us our
objective concept of time.  We merge in our mind a jillion objective
sequences from the life experience, and extract the essence of what the all
have in common, "time".

Illustrative point: I'm driving down the freeway, totally subjective.  Then
I see a sign, my exit is coming up.  The sign triggers an objective thought
sequence and I have to imagine myself a little bit into the future, making
the exit from another lane. 

If I've made this exit so often that it's become a habit, then I visualize
the process as a pathway extending out into my future.  I can view this
subjectively, I'm here, and I'm heading over there, and I don't have to
switch to objective thinking to make the exit.

From a subjective point of view, I see time as the whole range of what a
sensation or movement can be, I have a sense of my present moment
subjective experience moving in a certain direction along that range.

Example, I see a green light.  I know the whole sequence of possibilities,
green, orange, red. I know from past experience that going from green to
orange is a medium probability experience in my immediate future, so I step
on the gas, a little.  The light turns orange, and now I know that the
imminent experience of a red light has a high probability.  Pedal to the
metal.

I'm having a hard time getting to the point here, but the objective is to
figure out an expandable digital conceptual way of modeling time, that
seems plausible from both the subjective and the objective point of view.

I suspect it's going to involve thinking of each identifiable feature in my
subjective awareness has having a cycle (or a least a sequence) of possible
states.

Can anybody out there help me out here?

--
Ken Easlon
ken@holonet.net