From: Lee Corbin (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2008 - 08:46:50 MDT
Mike Dougherty writes
> I understand there may be value in retaining atomic details of every
> transaction. The transaction record may be later mined for further
> patterns that were not observed from an initial investigation.
> I offer this scenario: Your wife asks how your day was. You say, "It
> was fine" (because you really don't care to relive your day to provide
> the details) You then realize that what she was really asking was,
> "Are you going to ask me about MY day" so you reciprocate with, "And
> how was your day?" Now tell me, what amount of data do you record
> from the next 20 minutes of downloading she attempts to convey?
Depends (a) on the relationship (b) the wife's voice qualities (some gifted
talk show hosts have somehow such compelling voice qualities that you
would not find them reading the phone book out loud to be all that
boring) (c) just how good your own verbal memory is. Of course,
I'm probably taking your question too literally.
> I believe you would in-principle say that you have recorded every
> nuance of that 20 minutes.
Few people would or should make that claim. But then, what you
are trying to explain is what the "nuances" really amount to.
> If the physical universe real-time has an effectively unlimited
> resolution and bandwidth (granted: a debatable assumption)
You bet it's debatable, what with QM and the Bekenstein bound.
> You face death of your human body.
Now you've got my attention, and we may have just progressed
from SL2 to SL3 --- I hope Eliezer and the list snipers don't parse
for " SL* " :-)
> You can be uploaded with the following limitation on technology.
> The bandwidth to memory is a fixed constant (let's say due to
> electromagnetic storage constraints). However, the bandwidth
> bringing data into your 'brain' can exceed the bandwidth to
> memory by several orders of magnitude (it's 100% optical)
At least. And though we are just discussing principle, there
are the other senses that should be given passing mention.
> Do you tune your input rate down in order to accurately
> "remember" everything you perceive?
I'm missing what you are getting at with that question. Oh, on a
second re-reading, I get it. That is, for example, do I squint so
that the incoming bandwidth isn't any greater than the bandwidth
to my memory? (There's another sentence that could have been
restated and embroidered with "That is...", or "In other words..."
:-) But I'm just on a kick right now of trying to make other
people's emails more accessible to me (e.g. so that I have
to make fewer conjectures as I read, and it's easier to confirm
the ones I do make), so forgive the stylistic lecture.)
I can't remember ever doing that. That is, I don't recall ever
turning down the volume of an incoming podcast to grok more
of it (unless, naturally, it's so loud that it's *preventing* information
flow), or trying to skim written material IN ORDER TO notice
less of it----ah! Thanks! Yes I do. Often, especially with pages
I already read or which seem overly redundant I have found,
as per your prediction, that I can more accurately "remember
what I perceive".
But still, if I take your question above quite literally, the answer
still is no, I think. BTW, what has this to do with Memory
Merging Possible for Close Duplicates?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT