From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!torn.onet.on.ca!watserv1!watmath!xenitec!uunet.ca!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Sun May 31 19:04:28 EDT 1992
Article 5941 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!torn.onet.on.ca!watserv1!watmath!xenitec!uunet.ca!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (formerly "on meaning")
Message-ID: <1992May27.161507.17921@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Keywords: symbol, analog, Turing Test, robotics
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
References: <600@trwacs.fp.trw.com> <1992May24.143025.7180@psych.toronto.edu> <zlsiida.347@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 16:15:07 GMT
Lines: 53

In article <zlsiida.347@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>In article <1992May24.143025.7180@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>
>>In article <600@trwacs.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>>>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>>>In article <zlsiida.334@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>>>>I'm prepared not only to argue that we never see the world, but further, 
>>>>>that we never see retinal images either.  
>>>
>>>>then you are at great pains to account for the astounding correspondence 
>>>>what we see and what's out there. Just a lucky break?
>>>
>>>There has to be a correspondence, or the system would not have survived.
>>>Not just a lucky break, but evolution in operation. 
>>>
>>Evolution can't save you here. How did evolution do it? There are infinite
>>possible organismic constitutions. Thus the probability of it coming upon
>>the right one intitially is exactly 0. A more sophisticated explanation
>>is indicated.

There may be infinitely many (more likely a very large finite number)
of constitutions, but there are also infinitely many (or a very large
number of a not wildly dissimilar order of magnitude) of possible ways
to implement such correspondences.  Evolution did not have to arrive
at the particular outcone seen; there were many other satisfactory
outcomes.  This is a hackneyed argument originally used by
"creationists"; it is nonsense.  In the specific case of vision, two
basic implementations are exemplified among the actual products of
evolution, and one of them was arrived at twice independently
(biologists: am I correct that insect vision is basically different
from vertebrate vision, but that octopus vision is fairly similar? --
I'm willing to fall back to 3 independent implementations).


>
>1 over infinity may be very very very small but it ain't zero
>Prove there are infinite organismic constitutions.

infinity orver infinity is indeterminate, and often satisfactorily
large.

>+----Great Quotes of our Time----------------------------------------+
>|           The best way to predict the future is to create it       |
>+----------------------------------------Alan Kay (ex Xerox Parc)----+                                                                     
>|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033  |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


