RE: Seeing red
February 15, 2016 at 8:55 am
(This post was last modified: February 15, 2016 at 9:22 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Hehehe, yeah, it's a tangent, let's bring it back round and in, shall we? Demystifying those circuits, demystifies our experience. It may not explain it, but understanding how those systems work can explain how "stuff" -can- produce the effects we attribute to mind, even if we do it Some Other Way™, even if, ultimately, it's other stuff or different principles in action, in our case.
We might not be able to say "this is how we see red" - but we can describe how a computer sees red..and exhaustively so, all the way down to the quirks of a program counter's mechanical implementation.
Consider, for example, the way your circuits simply accept an input as true. That's required, mechanically, to do logic - a quirk just like the placement of mux in-circuit. It might seem puzzling that a logic machine can produce illogical statements, conclusions...but they clearly can..if and when that true input is standing in as the variable for whether or not a truth statement X -exists-, is stored in memory. The system takes it to be true, it does logic, and all is for naught at the end because it produces a gibberish statement such as "All birds are made of iron" -is true-.
We have a similar habit, in that we often assess the truth value of a claim by what we have stored in memory, regardless of the truth value of the statement in relation to some exterior or even objective standard. We might have seen a 6 inch crappie, and, when asked "is this a big crappie" we're answering, essentially, whether or not that crappie is bigger than the crappie of memory - our answer may not be representative of the size of crappie as a species, but it -will- be representative of those statements regarding crappie and size taken as true by us, based upon those inputs we are confined by in assessing anything.
A comparator can answer that question just as easily as we can, and it will succeed or fail in answering those questions by varying standards for precisely the same reasons and in precisely the same scenarios. In both cases the following occurs, if the crappie is larger than the crappie of memory, the conclusion is true, yes...that's a big crappie. If it's smaller, the reverse. If the crappie of memory is particularly large, then our statement "no, that is not a big crappie" is true referent only to the system.....outside of that the crappie in question might be very large indeed. If our crappie of memory is very small.....again the reverse. Why?
We might not be able to say "this is how we see red" - but we can describe how a computer sees red..and exhaustively so, all the way down to the quirks of a program counter's mechanical implementation.
Consider, for example, the way your circuits simply accept an input as true. That's required, mechanically, to do logic - a quirk just like the placement of mux in-circuit. It might seem puzzling that a logic machine can produce illogical statements, conclusions...but they clearly can..if and when that true input is standing in as the variable for whether or not a truth statement X -exists-, is stored in memory. The system takes it to be true, it does logic, and all is for naught at the end because it produces a gibberish statement such as "All birds are made of iron" -is true-.
We have a similar habit, in that we often assess the truth value of a claim by what we have stored in memory, regardless of the truth value of the statement in relation to some exterior or even objective standard. We might have seen a 6 inch crappie, and, when asked "is this a big crappie" we're answering, essentially, whether or not that crappie is bigger than the crappie of memory - our answer may not be representative of the size of crappie as a species, but it -will- be representative of those statements regarding crappie and size taken as true by us, based upon those inputs we are confined by in assessing anything.
A comparator can answer that question just as easily as we can, and it will succeed or fail in answering those questions by varying standards for precisely the same reasons and in precisely the same scenarios. In both cases the following occurs, if the crappie is larger than the crappie of memory, the conclusion is true, yes...that's a big crappie. If it's smaller, the reverse. If the crappie of memory is particularly large, then our statement "no, that is not a big crappie" is true referent only to the system.....outside of that the crappie in question might be very large indeed. If our crappie of memory is very small.....again the reverse. Why?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
