X-Message-Number: 11907 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: For Bob Ettinger and Mike Perry Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:15:12 +1000 (EST) Hi again! To Bob Ettinger: I did not say quite what you seem to think. The question I asked is not whether there is any way to communicate with some other intelligence (and note that an array of dots can be interpreted in more than one way ... it will be interesting to see if the message to tell about (I know about it too) will actually work) but whether the set of symbols we use in our language, when considered in all the different statements we make, will have an unambiguous interpretation. The message you describe tried hard NOT to use undefined symbols ... though it may have failed in its intent. One of the immediate difficulties in the kind of communication you discuss (I think Sagan had a hand in its invention, but others did too, so I can't give an author) is that our interpretation of a line of dots need not coincide with that of some other intelligence (not to mention that lines of dots are not part of our normal language ... except, that is, in ways that do not denote numbers). Suppose we interpret them as pauses for thought. We then get, first, from this system, a ranking of pauses for thought. Of course, ... + ... ...... just means that two people pausing with 3 pauses for thought will have the same thoughts as one personal with 6 pauses for thought. But I don't think that message bears on what I was saying anyway. It was an attempt to define numbers (first) WITHOUT the use of a definition in some language. I am asking whether any set of definitions of all the words in our dictionary will be so extensive that they have only one interpretation. Second, to Mike Perry: It is easy for a digital computer to SIMULATE a small neural net. No one would claim that it actually is one. And of course when the neural net gets larger and larger, the problem of simulating it becomes sufficiently hard that the best thing to do is simply to build one rather than try to simulate it. It is that simulation which makes the action of the computer symbolic rather than real. Here is a comparison, to explain: digital computers can simulate gasoline engines. That does not mean that we can put one doing that simulation in our car and drive around with it as our power source. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11907