How to confuse analytics - 5. Conceptual apparatus
In the last article I talked about probability and accuracy. Now we can more accurately explain what the data format for storing information means. If you have a time information storage format - a date, and you write that event A happened on such and such a number, then this means literally the following: we know that it happened at some point within that date with a uniform distribution of accuracy throughout day. In addition, if you say that event information will be recorded in this format, then it will literally mean the following: all events will have the same registration accuracy - up to a day. And this is a strong limitation, which is often burdensome. Very often you want to have a different data recording format for events of the same class in order to be able to simulate different accuracy of recording these events.
We talked about accounting objects as 4 dimensional objects existing in space-time. To simulate these objects, there are three ways to present them:
As I said, the same 4-dimensional object can be represented in one of the three listed types at the same time. Therefore, there is no difference between an object, a function, and an operation except in our mind.
')
But that's not all. Space itself and objects exist in our mind. It is easy to prove it, although many copies are broken on this issue. The very fact of proving this thesis is not as interesting as the way we will do it.
Suppose that what we know about a person is true. This means that a person has sensory organs, a tool for interpreting signals received from sensory organs and a conceptual apparatus for expressing images obtained as a result of interpretation. Create a similar device artificially. Let there be some kind of machine that is able to “perceive” the world, accumulate data of this perception, summarize the accumulated experience, build a conceptual apparatus for expressing accumulated experience and explain it with the help of this conceptual apparatus.
Now I am making a hypothesis that the conceptual apparatus is also a product of our consciousness - the result of the generalization of accumulated experience. Until now, we have taught machines to make a generalization of accumulated experience in the conceptual apparatus, which was invented by us - people. And we see that as a result of the training, the machines begin to easily cope with the tasks with which we cope with difficulty. At the same time, the conceptual apparatus in which machines build their conclusions remains human. But very soon we will set the next task for the machines - to optimize the conceptual apparatus itself. For what? To effectively transfer experience to each other. After all, this is how the conceptual apparatus of man was born - from the need to transfer experience to others. What does it mean? Human consciousness is very limited - in the field of attention is no more than 9-15 objects. A machine is capable of more - it is capable of keeping billions of objects in the field of its “attention” at the same time. This means that the machine may need a different conceptual apparatus, optimized for its capabilities. Do you think static objects will remain in her world, or will new concepts replace them? In my opinion, the machine does not need static objects as concepts, because the amount of attention the machine has is much larger. Therefore, static objects as such will disappear. But you can go even further. Human consciousness is limited not only by volume, but also by the way of information processing.
You can imagine a machine in which the way of processing information will be different from ours. We add this aspect and get a machine that creates a conceptual apparatus much more complicated than ours, much more productive and completely incomprehensible to us due to different physiology. AI is not so terrible as its conceptual apparatus. Science fiction nervously smoking in aside. When a washing machine learns to control my emotions with the help of a drain valve and it comes to this decision not on the basis of our reasoning, but on the basis of its solutions built on its conceptual apparatus, then the fox will come). So, we have proved that there is a theoretical possibility of building another conceptual apparatus and, therefore, our conceptual apparatus is not the only possible one. And from this it follows that objects, functions and operations exist in our consciousness only as a result of the generalization of the accumulated experience of perception. We could build an unimaginable number of other ways to describe our perception, but we stopped at the current one.
So, our conceptual apparatus consists of the idea that the world is a 4-dimensional space-time in which objects exist. This is how the interpretation of sense data takes place in our consciousness. However, the images that arise for each of us are purely individual. I would give a lot to see the images in the mind of another person, but, alas, this is impossible.
To transmit information about these images, we use signal systems - speech and drawing. It turns out that speech is a model of our perception, or a model of a model. As a paradigm for speech, the idea of ​​dividing images into three groups is used: objects, functions, and operations, for each of which there are classes — types. That is, we do not just pass on what we create in our mind, but also lay out what we see into groups of objects of the same type, or objects with the same attribute value. Relationships between objects are possible: side by side, intersect, switch on. We can also group objects and see several objects at the same time. We can also group objects into objects and see these groups of objects as one unit. Basically - that's all.
Once again ask the question: what do we model? Answer: using the paradigm of space - time and objects we model the result of our perception, and then we model the resulting model of our perception with the help of the speech paradigm in the form of a set of terms and sentences. Where are these models located? These models are in our mind.
Can we simulate speech? Yes, we can, for example, with the help of writing, and this will be a model model of the model of the result of our perception. Such levels of models can be arbitrarily many, and the main thing here is not to get confused. In addition, the question arises about the transitivity of models. We will talk about this in the next article.
Carlos's little tape:
Syntax
The man peered at his equations.
and declared that the universe had a beginning.
There was an explosion at the beginning, ”he said,“
Let's call it the Big Bang,
and the Universe was born.
And it is expanding, said the man.
He even calculated the duration of her life:
ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
And the whole world was happy;
everyone decided that his calculations were science.
It never occurred to anyone that
assuming that the universe had a beginning
this person just followed the syntax of his language;
syntax that requires beginnings, like birth,
development, like ripening,
and endings, like death.
Only in this way statements are built.
The universe once began,
and now she is aging, - that person assured us.
And she will die, as everything dies,
and how he himself died after confirmed
mathematically
syntax of your native language.
Other type of syntax
Did the universe really have a beginning?
Is the Big Bang Theory True?
These are not questions (despite the question mark). Is the syntax that requires beginning,
development and ends for the construction of statements,
the only existing syntax!
This is the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which requires that different intensity variants be taken as fact.
In this syntax, nothing starts and nothing ends; Birth is not a clearly defined event, but only a special type of intensity, like ripening and death.
A person of this syntax, looking through his equations, discovers that he has calculated quite a lot of intensity options to state authoritatively:
The universe never started
and never end
but she passed, and passes now, and more will pass
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
This person could very well conclude that the Universe itself is a chariot of intensity, and on it you can rush through endless changes.
He could have come to this conclusion, and to many others, perhaps without even realizing that he only confirms the syntax of his native language.
We talked about accounting objects as 4 dimensional objects existing in space-time. To simulate these objects, there are three ways to present them:
- With static objects (chair)
- With the help of dynamic objects that preserve the parameters of its dynamics (rotating engine)
- With the help of dynamic objects that do not preserve the parameters of their dynamics - operations (operations and events)
As I said, the same 4-dimensional object can be represented in one of the three listed types at the same time. Therefore, there is no difference between an object, a function, and an operation except in our mind.
')
But that's not all. Space itself and objects exist in our mind. It is easy to prove it, although many copies are broken on this issue. The very fact of proving this thesis is not as interesting as the way we will do it.
Evidence
Suppose that what we know about a person is true. This means that a person has sensory organs, a tool for interpreting signals received from sensory organs and a conceptual apparatus for expressing images obtained as a result of interpretation. Create a similar device artificially. Let there be some kind of machine that is able to “perceive” the world, accumulate data of this perception, summarize the accumulated experience, build a conceptual apparatus for expressing accumulated experience and explain it with the help of this conceptual apparatus.
Now I am making a hypothesis that the conceptual apparatus is also a product of our consciousness - the result of the generalization of accumulated experience. Until now, we have taught machines to make a generalization of accumulated experience in the conceptual apparatus, which was invented by us - people. And we see that as a result of the training, the machines begin to easily cope with the tasks with which we cope with difficulty. At the same time, the conceptual apparatus in which machines build their conclusions remains human. But very soon we will set the next task for the machines - to optimize the conceptual apparatus itself. For what? To effectively transfer experience to each other. After all, this is how the conceptual apparatus of man was born - from the need to transfer experience to others. What does it mean? Human consciousness is very limited - in the field of attention is no more than 9-15 objects. A machine is capable of more - it is capable of keeping billions of objects in the field of its “attention” at the same time. This means that the machine may need a different conceptual apparatus, optimized for its capabilities. Do you think static objects will remain in her world, or will new concepts replace them? In my opinion, the machine does not need static objects as concepts, because the amount of attention the machine has is much larger. Therefore, static objects as such will disappear. But you can go even further. Human consciousness is limited not only by volume, but also by the way of information processing.
You can imagine a machine in which the way of processing information will be different from ours. We add this aspect and get a machine that creates a conceptual apparatus much more complicated than ours, much more productive and completely incomprehensible to us due to different physiology. AI is not so terrible as its conceptual apparatus. Science fiction nervously smoking in aside. When a washing machine learns to control my emotions with the help of a drain valve and it comes to this decision not on the basis of our reasoning, but on the basis of its solutions built on its conceptual apparatus, then the fox will come). So, we have proved that there is a theoretical possibility of building another conceptual apparatus and, therefore, our conceptual apparatus is not the only possible one. And from this it follows that objects, functions and operations exist in our consciousness only as a result of the generalization of the accumulated experience of perception. We could build an unimaginable number of other ways to describe our perception, but we stopped at the current one.
So, our conceptual apparatus consists of the idea that the world is a 4-dimensional space-time in which objects exist. This is how the interpretation of sense data takes place in our consciousness. However, the images that arise for each of us are purely individual. I would give a lot to see the images in the mind of another person, but, alas, this is impossible.
To transmit information about these images, we use signal systems - speech and drawing. It turns out that speech is a model of our perception, or a model of a model. As a paradigm for speech, the idea of ​​dividing images into three groups is used: objects, functions, and operations, for each of which there are classes — types. That is, we do not just pass on what we create in our mind, but also lay out what we see into groups of objects of the same type, or objects with the same attribute value. Relationships between objects are possible: side by side, intersect, switch on. We can also group objects and see several objects at the same time. We can also group objects into objects and see these groups of objects as one unit. Basically - that's all.
Once again ask the question: what do we model? Answer: using the paradigm of space - time and objects we model the result of our perception, and then we model the resulting model of our perception with the help of the speech paradigm in the form of a set of terms and sentences. Where are these models located? These models are in our mind.
Can we simulate speech? Yes, we can, for example, with the help of writing, and this will be a model model of the model of the result of our perception. Such levels of models can be arbitrarily many, and the main thing here is not to get confused. In addition, the question arises about the transitivity of models. We will talk about this in the next article.
Carlos's little tape:
Syntax
The man peered at his equations.
and declared that the universe had a beginning.
There was an explosion at the beginning, ”he said,“
Let's call it the Big Bang,
and the Universe was born.
And it is expanding, said the man.
He even calculated the duration of her life:
ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
And the whole world was happy;
everyone decided that his calculations were science.
It never occurred to anyone that
assuming that the universe had a beginning
this person just followed the syntax of his language;
syntax that requires beginnings, like birth,
development, like ripening,
and endings, like death.
Only in this way statements are built.
The universe once began,
and now she is aging, - that person assured us.
And she will die, as everything dies,
and how he himself died after confirmed
mathematically
syntax of your native language.
Other type of syntax
Did the universe really have a beginning?
Is the Big Bang Theory True?
These are not questions (despite the question mark). Is the syntax that requires beginning,
development and ends for the construction of statements,
the only existing syntax!
This is the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which requires that different intensity variants be taken as fact.
In this syntax, nothing starts and nothing ends; Birth is not a clearly defined event, but only a special type of intensity, like ripening and death.
A person of this syntax, looking through his equations, discovers that he has calculated quite a lot of intensity options to state authoritatively:
The universe never started
and never end
but she passed, and passes now, and more will pass
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
This person could very well conclude that the Universe itself is a chariot of intensity, and on it you can rush through endless changes.
He could have come to this conclusion, and to many others, perhaps without even realizing that he only confirms the syntax of his native language.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/332822/
All Articles