4 ms·

Kind of does exist even with colors: try to map "brown" into an RGB or CMYK data point. I think the real difference is that in qualitative data the numerical r

Kind of does exist even with colors: try to map "brown" into an RGB or CMYK data point. I think the real difference is that in qualitative data the numerical representation does not mean anything. Sure, the names of the archangels can be represented digitally (quantitative) but that is just a change of representation - the bit strings' numerical value carries no theological meaning.

jon_richards 5y ago
Brown is (165,42,42). You can argue about false precision, but the term “brown” has false precision as well. The likely variation in interpretations can be described by error bars. Your understanding of someone saying “brown” is informed entirely by statistical inference of your past experience with “brown”. Changing the representation of the names doesn’t matter, but attempting to understand the meaning behind the names is ultimately quantitative. The numbers are run in the giant black box that is your brain and then your consciousness receives other qualitative answers. Asking for an AI without statistical inference or quantitative data is asking for consciousness without a brain.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  What is quantitative in understanding the meaning of a name? We don't know that the brain runs on "numbers" (and no, it's no just like a "computer"). To respond to your edit: That is not brown... there is a whole science of color perception, have a look.
  - jon_richards 5y ago
    It’s not a computer, but it is quantified.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      That touches on the really tricky point that some things can be quantified but not computed, so again, we don't know how that measurable representation relates to they way results are derived.
    - username90 5y ago
      Numbers implies you can do mathematical operations on them that makes sense. So how would you quantify "good" or "bad"? You can't unless you also answer what "good" + "bad" should be. In psychology they just assume that mapping those onto 1 and 5 makes sense, so "good" + "bad" = 5 + 1 = 6, but that doesn't make sense since it would imply that "good" is the same as "bad" + "bad" + "bad" + "bad" + "bad". You get similar but different issues if you start including negative numbers, or if you just use relative measures and don't have a proper zero, no matter what you do numbers doesn't properly represent feelings as we know them.
  - m00x 5y ago
    It is quantitative, but in an abstract way. You see the color "brown" as a reception of a photon of a certain wavelength onto your retina, which is sent to your brain. Visual perception can be equated to camera perception, but the data isn't represented the same way. Humans are just much better at "analog input" than computers are. When you see things around you, it's natural to try to classify it at multiple levels. In our early formative years, we learn shapes, lines, colours, etc. This said, "Brown" is just a label we put on a the perception of a photo's wavelength, which is quantitative on the light spectrum. All raw data is quantitative. Qualitative data are just the labels we put on it, but if we're going to general intelligence, we can't shortcut learning this way.

jon_richards 5y ago

Brown is (165,42,42). You can argue about false precision, but the term “brown” has false precision as well. The likely variation in interpretations can be described by error bars. Your understanding of someone saying “brown” is informed entirely by statistical inference of your past experience with “brown”. Changing the representation of the names doesn’t matter, but attempting to understand the meaning behind the names is ultimately quantitative. The numbers are run in the giant black box that is your brain and then your consciousness receives other qualitative answers. Asking for an AI without statistical inference or quantitative data is asking for consciousness without a brain.

RandomLensman 5y ago
What is quantitative in understanding the meaning of a name? We don't know that the brain runs on "numbers" (and no, it's no just like a "computer"). To respond to your edit: That is not brown... there is a whole science of color perception, have a look.
- jon_richards 5y ago
  It’s not a computer, but it is quantified.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    That touches on the really tricky point that some things can be quantified but not computed, so again, we don't know how that measurable representation relates to they way results are derived.
  - username90 5y ago
    Numbers implies you can do mathematical operations on them that makes sense. So how would you quantify "good" or "bad"? You can't unless you also answer what "good" + "bad" should be. In psychology they just assume that mapping those onto 1 and 5 makes sense, so "good" + "bad" = 5 + 1 = 6, but that doesn't make sense since it would imply that "good" is the same as "bad" + "bad" + "bad" + "bad" + "bad". You get similar but different issues if you start including negative numbers, or if you just use relative measures and don't have a proper zero, no matter what you do numbers doesn't properly represent feelings as we know them.
- m00x 5y ago
  It is quantitative, but in an abstract way. You see the color "brown" as a reception of a photon of a certain wavelength onto your retina, which is sent to your brain. Visual perception can be equated to camera perception, but the data isn't represented the same way. Humans are just much better at "analog input" than computers are. When you see things around you, it's natural to try to classify it at multiple levels. In our early formative years, we learn shapes, lines, colours, etc. This said, "Brown" is just a label we put on a the perception of a photo's wavelength, which is quantitative on the light spectrum. All raw data is quantitative. Qualitative data are just the labels we put on it, but if we're going to general intelligence, we can't shortcut learning this way.