Ian Goddard wrote:
That's a tricky definition of change but it's not the only one, e.g.,
FPGA circuits can be made to work without ever using zero.
> At 12:26 PM 9/27/98 +1200, J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
> >Systems need to change and they need to be able to anticipate their own
> >future behavior or change and the constructions that permit them to see
> >themselves across some stages of change. My gut feeling is that zero
> >can't do this.
> IAN: Change is defined by its displacement from zero
> change. If a system anticipates its change, it must
> use "no change" as a hypothetical point of measure
> the deviation from which defines a state of change.
> So zero is implicit in the measurement you speak of.
That's a tricky definition of change but it's not the only one, e.g., FPGA circuits can be made to work without ever using zero.
"One major disadvantage of the Babylonian system however was their lack
of a zero.
This meant that numbers did not have a unique representation but required the
context to make clear whether 1 meant 1, 61, 3601, etc. "
How I intend to use this analogy in my AI model is by activating the constructions implied by the "1, 61, 3601, etc. " and then simply promote the context that eventually causes feedback; without the need to compare thread results. Massively parallel Internet computers converging the results of Ingrid's independent component analysis will soon determine if this approach is valid. If I find evidence that the Babylonian system can't implement an AI then I'll abandon my quest for artificial consciousness. Here I'm just using "Babylonian" to refer to my continuous Ingrid amathematical approach.