----- Original Message ----- From: "david" <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Fractint and General Fractals Discussion" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, 16 November, 2006 03 53 Subject: Re: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel inthe Night[7])
David M Fisher wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "david" <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Fractint and General Fractals Discussion" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 19 58 Subject: Re: [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night[7])
Bruce Sanborn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Paul N. Lee <mailto:Paul.N.Lee@Worldnet.att.net> *To:* philofractal@lists.fractalus.com <mailto:philofractal@lists.fractalus.com> *Cc:* fractint@mailman.xmission.com <mailto:fractint@mailman.xmission.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:57 AM *Subject:* [Fractint] Re: [philofractal] FOTD 14-11-06 (Jewel in the Night [7])
Jim Muth wrote: > > ....and will artificial-intelligence > computers ever be able to dream > while they sleep? >
Since humans (with their own artificial-intelligence) are creating the computers in their image, I would say that eventially the computers should be able to (if sufficiently programmed).
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
What I am curious about is if they will create their own religion. ;-}
Only if they are seriously flawed ;-|
Which they will be, having been designed and implemented by seriously-flawed human beings. On its own, imperfection can neither attain perfection nor even recognize perfection when it encounters perfection.
-- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
IMHO Bruce has it right, and the proof is in the pudding.
The proof is in the sea of imperfect software that we call get to deal with ... ;-)
David's comment is specious. If not so then the faults of any creator are infused in the creation.....so that a potter who is crippled makes crippled pottery? Perfection is attainable, and can be recognized even by the unperfect.
How so? The imperfect perceive through imperfect senses and understand through imperfect minds, distorting - and rendering imperfect - any perfection it might perceive or achieve. So any perfection it encounters will not be recognized or understood *as perfection*, but as just another imperfection.
No, perfection is not attainable by the unaided efforts of imperfection. It can only come from outside, from the efforts of some already existing perfection.
The reverse logic of the statement also implies that since man is imperfect, so therefore must be man's creator, since the imperfections are, and must be, transferred. I don't think so.
The logic doesn't run in reverse, because the creator->created relationship is not a symmetrical relationship. A crippled (or non-crippled, for that matter) potter may chose to make a "crippled" pot, but a pot in any state doesn't choose to make a potter in that same state. (I put "crippled" in quotes there to indicate that is a pot that was intentionally made imperfect - the product of a potter not even trying to attain perfection.)
-- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
OK. Lets get on the same sheet of music if we're going to sing. "Perfect" is an adjective, which makes it a descriptive part of speech, which in turn renders it subjective. "Perfection" is a noun which makes it objective. "Perfect" is without flaw, which leaves open the question "What is a flaw?" "Perfection" is the state of being flawless. So we have an objective, measureable, quantified, thing (perfection) based upon a subjective base (perfect). What is perfect, here, is not under discussion. Only if whatever my concrption of perfect is, is attainable. I believe it is. The potter analogy was used to exemplify only the idea that "creator" flaws do not necessarily appear in the "creation", although according to your statement this process can not be avoided. And at an higher level the reverse logic is applicable. According to religous belief, there is some supreme being who made everything. If this being is perfect where does the imperfection come from? If the perfect design was designed imperfect then two conclusions can be drawn: imperfection is perfection, or perfection can not be achieved no matter what the source. Religion states that a perfect god made an imperfect universe, with all the accoutrements. Without awareness would god exist? I do not think so, and upon this premise I posit that we, as a species, are the inventors who created religion, which in turn is used to explain and justify everything. The loop is closed to the faithful, and within this loop is the reverse symmetry which I alluded to without example or statement. Sorry, my bust. In closing I ask to show me the flaw in the simple following: 2+2=4. Or if your "new math" : 2+2=5 for large values of 2. David M Fisher _______________________________________________
Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint