[Sigia-l] "Gait code"

[Alexander Johannesen]

John <John.Trenouth at cardinal.com> wrote:
> Analysis is sort of like Schrödinger's cat, and beyond the capacities of
> any piece of software.

Nope, I think you're quite wrong in this; analysis software is today
more powerful than ever, capable of doing quite sophisticated things.
But before we get into a fistfight about what 'analysis' mean, just
tell me the difference between a human and a computer "doing
something" (be it analysis, pattern recognition, phsychic powers,
tea-leaves observation, whatever) when they come to the exact same
result? What is the difference between analysis and
pattern-recognition if the result is the same?

> Collecting higher mountains of even finer granules of data to recognize even more
> sophisticated patterns still remains a data level activity.  What does the
> breathing/voice/speech/temperature mean?  The data while collected is entirely inert
> until we (not software) can make meaning of it.  What you've described is data
> collection, not even recognition, let alone meaningful analysis.

Now, now; what is 'meaning'? If you want us to walk down the old path
of epistomology, I'm more than happy to do so. Again, let's get back
to good ol' Turing; if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck,
what is it? If it looks and feels like analysis, is it?

If you really want to get down to it, "meaning" is "something that you
can work out"; significance, intention, implication. Why don't you
think a computer can work out these things in given contexts?

(And for the record: I've written quite sophisticated AI programs
costing millions of dollars that does exactly what described above.
That's my bias for you. :)


Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________