discrete fourier series and transform

On 12/26/2012 7:26 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> 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?

A simulation doesn't have consciousness.  I would not exist as a 
thinking entity if I were only a computer simulation.  I think... no, I 
perceive that I am thinking.

Rick

On 12/27/12 4:56 PM, rickman wrote:
> 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.
>

i think i hit your point spot on and you missed mine.  care to explore 
that a bit?


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 12/27/12 4:58 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 12/26/2012 7:26 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> 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?
>
> A simulation doesn't have consciousness.

i might agree with that, but i know that this is not a universally 
accepted axiomatic fact.

> I would not exist as a thinking
> entity if I were only a computer simulation.

again, that may be true, but it is far from a proven fact and *many* 
people (say Ray Kurzwiel) would dispute it.

> I think... no, I perceive
> that I am thinking.

and a computer running a program cannot perceive?


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 12/27/12 4:23 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
> 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.

i have to confess Randy, that i still don't get it.  and i dunno how you 
might elucidate it.

we know that computers only deal with finite numbers (at least 
numerically, we can and do have representations for + and - infinity). 
and we know that a finite sum of finite numbers will be finite.  but i 
don't have a clue as to how this speaks to the inherent periodicity of 
the DFT.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:

> On 12/27/12 4:23 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
>> 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.
>
> i have to confess Randy, that i still don't get it.  and i dunno how
> you might elucidate it.
>
> we know that computers only deal with finite numbers (at least
> numerically, we can and do have representations for + and - infinity).
> and we know that a finite sum of finite numbers will be finite.  but i
> don't have a clue as to how this speaks to the inherent periodicity of
> the DFT.

By what basis do we call something a "spectrum?" Answer that, and you'll
be halfway to my point.

Sure, the DFT doesn't output an infinite number of values. But if there
were some way to interpret those N values into an infinite number, say,
by periodically extending those N values, you could say it's a spectrum
and since that spectrum is discrete the signal would have to be
periodic.
-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

On 12/27/2012 5:13 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 12/27/12 4:56 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 12/26/2012 6:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>> On 12/25/12 10:15 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> i think i hit your point spot on and you missed mine. care to explore
> that a bit?

I'm a little confused.  I already said, "I have no way to distinguish 
whether you are conscious or a very well programmed automaton."  So you 
may have consciousness or not, how does one distinguish if someone else 
has consciousness?  I know of no test for this.

One poster seems to be suggesting that I might be a computer simulation 
that thinks I have consciousness and you seem to be saying I have no 
reason to believe I am special so I should assume all beings who appear 
to have consciousness do because I do.  Clearly there is no way to tell.

Are you part of my simulation or am I part of yours?

Rick

On 12/26/2012 6:49 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 22:15:45 -0500, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com>  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.
>>
>> Rick
>
> So you think.   You can't prove that your consciousness isn't
> deterministic and therefore programmed.

Why would I prove anything to an automaton?

Rick

Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:

(snip)
>> we know that computers only deal with finite numbers (at least
>> numerically, we can and do have representations for + and - infinity).
>> and we know that a finite sum of finite numbers will be finite.  but i
>> don't have a clue as to how this speaks to the inherent periodicity of
>> the DFT.
 
> By what basis do we call something a "spectrum?" Answer that, and you'll
> be halfway to my point.

The spectrum of visible light, as far as I know the original use
of the word, has finite limits. Seems to me that infinite isn't
required for a spectrum.
 
> Sure, the DFT doesn't output an infinite number of values. But if there
> were some way to interpret those N values into an infinite number, say,
> by periodically extending those N values, you could say it's a spectrum
> and since that spectrum is discrete the signal would have to be
> periodic.

-- glen

On 12/26/2012 7:26 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> 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

Who me?  How could I be a simulation?  I have consciousness.  You can't 
program that!

Can you?  I guess there's no way to know unless I do the programming and 
find I've programmed a conscious machine... but there is no test to tell 
so even then I won't know...  This is so confusing to a conscious being. 
  You guys seem to understand it so you must be automata.

Rick

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:

> Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:
>> robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:
>
> (snip)
>>> we know that computers only deal with finite numbers (at least
>>> numerically, we can and do have representations for + and - infinity).
>>> and we know that a finite sum of finite numbers will be finite.  but i
>>> don't have a clue as to how this speaks to the inherent periodicity of
>>> the DFT.
>  
>> By what basis do we call something a "spectrum?" Answer that, and you'll
>> be halfway to my point.
>
> The spectrum of visible light, as far as I know the original use
> of the word, has finite limits. Seems to me that infinite isn't
> required for a spectrum.

The range is infinite; that doesn't mean that there are non-zero values
out to infinity. A spectrum that is -j at -1 and +j at +1 and zero
everywhere else has a range of C (the complex).
-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com