@Eatsbluecrayon Another demonstration would be to bring a chessboard to class, along with extra pieces, and have the class play chess with an AI of their choosing. They’ll get to watch with their own eyes as the AI fabricates positions and pieces.

This is especially useful because computers have been beating human opponents at chess for a long time now, so people know that chess is something computers can do. That an AI can’t indicates it is worse than its predecessors.

@jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon

If you don’t believe everything can be expressed in numbers then consequently you must believe there is some “magic” in which numbers are meaningless.

That simply isn’t the case. From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers.

Magic or numbers. That’s the choice.

Thus: language is math (numbers encoded).

@holdenweb
representation is doing lifting there…
I agree we cannot represent all the math correctly. Normal numbers are the bulk of numbers and they can’t be represented on the computer… Doesn’t mean normal numbers don’t exist.

Analog systems are still describable by numbers. Digitization is a different issue.

Our limits of representation are not the limits of numbers in the abstract.

You bring up good points, though. Quantization is an issue with representing numbers.

@holdenweb you assert that it can’t be done.

Okay: asserted noted. Any actual argument or reason? (Other than it “feels/seems” like to can’t be done).