2 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2017
    1. How does an insubstantial word like “apple” lead you to think of a real thing—an object of a certain size that is red, round, sweet, and has a shiny, thin-peeled skin? How could a plain acoustic sound produce such complex states of mind, involving all those qualities of color, substance, taste, and shape? Presumably, each different quality involves a different agency. But then—in view of all we’ve said about why different agents can’t communicate—how could such varying recipients all “understand” the selfsame messages? Do language-agents have unusual abilities to communicate with different kinds of agencies?

      What article doesn't bring up is the context of the environment that the person grew up in. If we were to describe the word apple to someone who has never seen or tasted it, they would not be able to visualize what it is with just the word. The mind would try to relate it to an object that you have already experience to fill in what an "apple" may be.

  2. Sep 2017
    1. Large computer networks (and their associated users) may “wake up” as superhumanly intelligent entities.

      The author refers to both the computer network and its user when he refers to them "waking up." This may be a prediction of a soon to be symbiotic relation to us and technology. We are already using technology to mange our social life, our infrastructure, and even our health with pacemaker. We are already living in a world where we are inseparable from technology, but will we one day be completely be inseparable?