wrote in message
oups.com...
OK....

Now, this _*IS*_ a trick question:

You come across another entity. All you know is that this entity is
intelligent and capable of self-replication. The means are unnecessary
to this discussion. You are genetically identical to a garden spider as
compared to this entity.

How would you communicate? What concept is absolute across the entire
known universe?

OK, so we can't assume it has any sense of sight, touch, taste, smell or
hearing. It may have no sense of self. It may have no spatial awareness.
Existing without an appreciation of time would be difficult for us to
understand but could be possible.

No, I'm stumped. I guess you might be thinking of the concept of an "object"
but that's tied up with spatial awareness, which our entity might not have.

No, I'm stumped.

No, you are not. You are well down one of several paths to the correct
answer.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com...
No, I'm stumped.

No, you are not. You are well down one of several paths to the correct
answer.

OK, are you thinking of "nothing"?

OK, are you thinking of "nothing"?

Rich:

No, not hardly. Trick question... Trick Question.

Note the form of the question (trick). You know that the entity is
intelligent and capable of self-replication. From this, assume the
following:

a) The form you perceive (by whatever means) is organized in a way that
you see it as a definable entity. It may be a collective or a single
entity, but it is definable.
b) You see activity, material, evidence or results that show
self-replication. From replication one deducts self-awareness or
purpose. (Careful here, though. Don't mistake something like a crystal
growth process as self-replication.)
c) You also see activity, evidence or results that strongly suggest
intelligence. So, this entity will pass the Turing test. That making
the test mutually understandable may be difficult is beside the
point... right now.

Bottom line here. DON'T try too hard.

Having gone as far as the above three things (as they are assumed by
the form of the question): How would one communicate? Apart from magic?


You would start with numbers. 1.414..... starting in binary, and then
in any base as might fit. Any entity with mathematics would know this
number. Or, 3.1415.... and so forth. Numbers no good? Make patterns
that do not exist in nature. The pythagorean triangle with the squares
shown.

You are leaping in: Does this entity have eyes that (it) can see? Go to
c) above. Impinge onto that evidence. If you perceive it as
intelligent, that requires that you see what part of it shows such.
Affect that part with an obvious sign of intelligence (to you) and it
*might* be mutually discernable. Otherwise, try another impingement...
say there are a bunch of pins stuck in the ground in a line spaced at
some distance apart. Reverse or invert the pattern.

Obvious commonalities between any intelligent entities in the Known
Universe:

The periodic table. Oxygen on the Planet Widget in the Galaxy
Gezortenphlat is oxygen here.
Arithmatic. Two items here will remain two items there.
Spatial relationships. A Mobius Strip will be 100% the product of
intelligence wherever it might be found. As will be a Klein Bottle, or
a Tesseract.
Gas Laws.
And so forth.

Point being that if intelligence can be recognized, then communication
will be possible. The problem is in its recognition. Superficially,
ants and bees may be mistaken for intelligent. It is perhaps the case
that we will see either too much or too little when we view possible
intelligence outside ourselves. There was a time within the Catholic
Church when belief in possible 'other' intelligence was called the
"pathetic fallacy" and denied altogether within the natural world.

But, the properties of numbers exist independently of us. We describe
them and from that think we own them and that knowledge. But the
relationships of the sides of a right triangle as descibed by
Pythagorus existed before he described them, and will obtain any time
they are tested. The relationship between the circumference of a circle
and its diameter existed long before pi was described, and is also
immutable. One of the first obvious external indications of
'intelligence' is the use and understanding of these relationships.

What I meant by "being down the path" is that you have all the evidence
you need to initiate communications on any of several obvious plains
(another trick, when I 'suggested' in the original question only one
concept... I tried to give it away when I suggested 'several paths'.).
YOU KNOW THE ENTITY IS INTELLIGENT. So, work with that knowledge and
make changes in how you gained that knowledge. That is the means to
communicate.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote:



Obvious commonalities between any intelligent entities in the Known
Universe:

The periodic table. Oxygen on the Planet Widget in the Galaxy
Gezortenphlat is oxygen here.

Maybe not, that assumes that all the fundimental constants are the same
there as they are here, thats a far bigger assumption that the ratio
that is pi being the same.

--
Nick

Nick:

Oxygen will be the same wherever and whatever (like pi). What may be
different would be allotropes and isotopes. One has to be fairly
careful when nibbling around the edges of very basic science (and
math). Those things have immutable aspects despite fondest wishes to
the contrary. My contention is that it will be those aspects that will
allow the initiation of communications between species that otherwise
share _NOTHING_ else in common.

I wrote a shorter version of this that seems to have disappeared.
Please forgive if it suddenly appears.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote:
Nick:

Oxygen will be the same wherever and whatever (like pi). What may be
different would be allotropes and isotopes. One has to be fairly
careful when nibbling around the edges of very basic science (and
math). Those things have immutable aspects despite fondest wishes to
the contrary. My contention is that it will be those aspects that will
allow the initiation of communications between species that otherwise
share _NOTHING_ else in common.

I wrote a shorter version of this that seems to have disappeared.
Please forgive if it suddenly appears.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


Sorry, I disagre, we can consider the existance of situations where the
large scale chemical action of atoms is different, it would only take a
altered value for one of the fundimental relationships, Planck's
constant for one example. And we cannot know with certantity that these
altered conditions do not exist at some distant point in space. However
we do not know of a way of constructing a plain geometry that has a
different ratio between the circumferance of a circle and its diameter.
This is why I am suggesting that your claim that oxygen is as universal
as pi is incorrect.

Maybe you are used to considering maths a tool of other sciences,
instead of a thing apart, you comment earlier along the lines that it
was just the study and description of "real" world events and actions
indicates that.

--
Nick

wrote in message
ups.com...
OK, are you thinking of "nothing"?

Rich:

No, not hardly. Trick question... Trick Question.

Note the form of the question (trick). You know that the entity is
intelligent and capable of self-replication. From this, assume the
following:

a) The form you perceive (by whatever means) is organized in a way that
you see it as a definable entity. It may be a collective or a single
entity, but it is definable.
b) You see activity, material, evidence or results that show
self-replication. From replication one deducts self-awareness or
purpose.

LOL... think about it...!

I'm not sure I dare look in the fridge now that I know my lettuce is
self-aware.


c) You also see activity, evidence or results that strongly suggest
intelligence. So, this entity will pass the Turing test.

That's a pretty big leap. You're assuming the entity has a system of
communication similar to our written or spoken language. Which isn't
necessarily the case.


That making
the test mutually understandable may be difficult is beside the
point... right now.

Bottom line here. DON'T try too hard.

Having gone as far as the above three things (as they are assumed by
the form of the question): How would one communicate? Apart from magic?


You would start with numbers. 1.414..... starting in binary, and then
in any base as might fit. Any entity with mathematics would know this
number. Or, 3.1415.... and so forth. Numbers no good? Make patterns
that do not exist in nature. The pythagorean triangle with the squares
shown.

You really are totally convinced that there's no other way of thinking about
things than the one you happen to know, aren't you?. At least *try* to be a
bit open-minded!

You really are totally convinced that there's no other way of thinking about
things than the one you happen to know, aren't you?. At least *try* to be a
bit open-minded!

YIKES!!

THAT is the fallacy of leaping to conclusions.

No, what I am saying is that if one wishes to communicate with a
know-intelligent entity across _very dense_ barriers, one had better
damned-well stick with what is certain, and use what is already known.

Only after communications are established can one experiment with
things that are beyond what one 'happens to know'. And if I were to be
so silly as to limit myself as you describe, then all learning (and
most communication beyond "I am
hungry/thirsty/tired/wet/dry/horny/hot/cold) would be impossible.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
ups.com...
You really are totally convinced that there's no other way of thinking
about
things than the one you happen to know, aren't you?. At least *try* to be
a
bit open-minded!

YIKES!!

THAT is the fallacy of leaping to conclusions.

No, what I am saying is that if one wishes to communicate with a
know-intelligent entity across _very dense_ barriers, one had better
damned-well stick with what is certain, and use what is already known.

I think you'd be better off looking at how babies are taught to understand
language rather than jumping straight into abstract mathematics.