rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: (snip)> I believe that... for everyone else. I have no way to distinguish > whether you are conscious or a very well programmed automaton. But I > know I am conscious. I think, therefore I am conscious.Seems that there was recently a paper published about the question of whether we (us, or world, our universe) is real or just a simulation on some computer somewhere (presumably in a larger universe). (Published by a UW researcher, and so local news in Seattle.) Are you sure you are not a simulation on someone's computer? -- glen
discrete fourier series and transform
Started by ●December 23, 2012
Reply by ●December 26, 20122012-12-26
Reply by ●December 26, 20122012-12-26
Bostrom,N., 2003, Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255. http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
On 12/24/2012 10:13 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> > Jerry, i dunno when, but next time i have to be in Joisey, i wanna look > you up again. you are comp.dsp's sage. > > On 12/24/12 5:59 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >> On 12/23/2012 4:33 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> ... >> >> > there's just no way around the property of periodicity. >> >> Sure there is. There are people around who actually believe that the >> world ended when the Mayan calender is purported to have said it would, >> and that what we experience now is merely a periodic extension. > > well, an interesting thought that i first heard from Daniel Dennett to > support his thesis of physicalism and to deal with the issue of > consciousness or qualia is that we are essentially automatons who > *think* they have consciousness. > > wouldn't that be a similar existence? > >> Periodicity -- or its lack -- seems to be in the eye of the beholder. > > sorta like Beauty. > > interesting that both are properties of mathematics. and i understand > that mathematical aesthetic can be in the eye of the beholder. i > usually equate it with elegance and, for me, more elegance is always > better as long as it remains accurate (well, of course there are times > to make the elegant approximation and make use of it, sometimes we do > that with an icky cost function and turn it into something you can turn > into a closed-form solution). but i always prefer elegance and, i'll > admit, i have my own ideas about what elegance means.C'mon, Robert. I'm just yanking your chain. Jerry -- Elegance should be left to shoemakers and tailors. -- Ludwig Boltzmann �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
On 12/27/12 12:13 AM, Jerry Avins wrote:> On 12/24/2012 10:13 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> Jerry, i dunno when, but next time i have to be in Joisey, i wanna look >> you up again. you are comp.dsp's sage. >> >> On 12/24/12 5:59 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>> On 12/23/2012 4:33 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> > there's just no way around the property of periodicity. >>> >>> Sure there is. There are people around who actually believe that the >>> world ended when the Mayan calender is purported to have said it would, >>> and that what we experience now is merely a periodic extension. >> >> well, an interesting thought that i first heard from Daniel Dennett to >> support his thesis of physicalism and to deal with the issue of >> consciousness or qualia is that we are essentially automatons who >> *think* they have consciousness. >> >> wouldn't that be a similar existence? >> >>> Periodicity -- or its lack -- seems to be in the eye of the beholder. >> >> sorta like Beauty. >> >> interesting that both are properties of mathematics. and i understand >> that mathematical aesthetic can be in the eye of the beholder. i >> usually equate it with elegance and, for me, more elegance is always >> better as long as it remains accurate (well, of course there are times >> to make the elegant approximation and make use of it, sometimes we do >> that with an icky cost function and turn it into something you can turn >> into a closed-form solution). but i always prefer elegance and, i'll >> admit, i have my own ideas about what elegance means. > > C'mon, Robert. I'm just yanking your chain.oookay. but the apparent factuality of your chain yanking seems to be the case here. some of us see periodicity in the DFT and others seem to see that it's not there. -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:> On 12/27/12 12:13 AM, Jerry Avins wrote: >> On 12/24/2012 10:13 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> >>> Jerry, i dunno when, but next time i have to be in Joisey, i wanna look >>> you up again. you are comp.dsp's sage. >>> >>> On 12/24/12 5:59 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>>> On 12/23/2012 4:33 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> > there's just no way around the property of periodicity. >>>> >>>> Sure there is. There are people around who actually believe that the >>>> world ended when the Mayan calender is purported to have said it would, >>>> and that what we experience now is merely a periodic extension. >>> >>> well, an interesting thought that i first heard from Daniel Dennett to >>> support his thesis of physicalism and to deal with the issue of >>> consciousness or qualia is that we are essentially automatons who >>> *think* they have consciousness. >>> >>> wouldn't that be a similar existence? >>> >>>> Periodicity -- or its lack -- seems to be in the eye of the beholder. >>> >>> sorta like Beauty. >>> >>> interesting that both are properties of mathematics. and i understand >>> that mathematical aesthetic can be in the eye of the beholder. i >>> usually equate it with elegance and, for me, more elegance is always >>> better as long as it remains accurate (well, of course there are times >>> to make the elegant approximation and make use of it, sometimes we do >>> that with an icky cost function and turn it into something you can turn >>> into a closed-form solution). but i always prefer elegance and, i'll >>> admit, i have my own ideas about what elegance means. >> >> C'mon, Robert. I'm just yanking your chain. > > oookay. but the apparent factuality of your chain yanking seems to be > the case here. some of us see periodicity in the DFT and others seem > to see that it's not there.Perhaps one of the things that trips people up is the fact that the range (as in domain/range nomenclature) of the DFT is not infinite, and anything that is called a "spectrum" (usually) ranges from negative infinity to positive infinity. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
On 12/27/12 12:44 PM, Randy Yates wrote:> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> writes: >> >> ... some of us see periodicity in the DFT and others seem >> to see that it's not there. > > Perhaps one of the things that trips people up is the fact that the > range (as in domain/range nomenclature) of the DFT is not infinite,well, isn't that the what the core of the dispute is? the DFT receives a sequence or vector of finite length and returns a vector of the same finite length and the whole issues is what gets appended to that sequence outside its original domain.> and > anything that is called a "spectrum" (usually) ranges from negative > infinity to positive infinity.well, some might say from -Nyquist to +Nyquist. (that's the only unique spectrum for discrete-time signals.) -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:> On 12/27/12 12:44 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> writes: >>> >>> ... some of us see periodicity in the DFT and others seem >>> to see that it's not there. >> >> Perhaps one of the things that trips people up is the fact that the >> range (as in domain/range nomenclature) of the DFT is not infinite, > > well, isn't that the what the core of the dispute is? > > the DFT receives a sequence or vector of finite length and returns a > vector of the same finite length and the whole issues is what gets > appended to that sequence outside its original domain.I said range, not domain... -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
On 12/27/12 3:21 PM, Randy Yates wrote:> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> writes: > >> On 12/27/12 12:44 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >>> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> writes: >>>> >>>> ... some of us see periodicity in the DFT and others seem >>>> to see that it's not there. >>> >>> Perhaps one of the things that trips people up is the fact that the >>> range (as in domain/range nomenclature) of the DFT is not infinite, >> >> well, isn't that the what the core of the dispute is? >> >> the DFT receives a sequence or vector of finite length and returns a >> vector of the same finite length and the whole issues is what gets >> appended to that sequence outside its original domain. > > I said range, not domain...lessee, it's been a while since i've been in the class but isn't "domain" the possible values the argument can take and "range" the possible values the returned value can take? for x[n], isn't "n" in the domain and "x" in the range? -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:> On 12/27/12 3:21 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> writes: >> >>> On 12/27/12 12:44 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >>>> robert bristow-johnson<rbj@audioimagination.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> ... some of us see periodicity in the DFT and others seem >>>>> to see that it's not there. >>>> >>>> Perhaps one of the things that trips people up is the fact that the >>>> range (as in domain/range nomenclature) of the DFT is not infinite, >>> >>> well, isn't that the what the core of the dispute is? >>> >>> the DFT receives a sequence or vector of finite length and returns a >>> vector of the same finite length and the whole issues is what gets >>> appended to that sequence outside its original domain. >> >> I said range, not domain... > > lessee, it's been a while since i've been in the class but isn't > "domain" the possible values the argument can take and "range" the > possible values the returned value can take? > > for x[n], isn't "n" in the domain and "x" in the range?Yes, but I don't think you're seeing my point. What I'm getting at is this: If one could state unambiguously that the OUTPUT (range) of the DFT was infinite and a "frequency domain," then it seems we could insist that since the output was discrete the input must be periodic. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●December 27, 20122012-12-27
On 12/26/2012 6:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 12/25/12 10:15 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 12/24/2012 10:13 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> >>> Jerry, i dunno when, but next time i have to be in Joisey, i wanna look >>> you up again. you are comp.dsp's sage. >>> >>> On 12/24/12 5:59 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>>> On 12/23/2012 4:33 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> > there's just no way around the property of periodicity. >>>> >>>> Sure there is. There are people around who actually believe that the >>>> world ended when the Mayan calender is purported to have said it would, >>>> and that what we experience now is merely a periodic extension. >>> >>> well, an interesting thought that i first heard from Daniel Dennett to >>> support his thesis of physicalism and to deal with the issue of >>> consciousness or qualia is that we are essentially automatons who >>> *think* they have consciousness. >> >> I believe that... for everyone else. I have no way to distinguish >> whether you are conscious or a very well programmed automaton. But I >> know I am conscious. I think, therefore I am conscious. > > so you are a being with consciousness and feelings but everyone else are > sophisticated automatons? are you the only such being? > > i dunno what this would be called, but could we apply a sorta > "Copernican principle" but replace "the Earth" with "oneself"?You miss my point. I can only confirm my consciousness. I can't distinguish you from a very well designed automaton. Rick
