If 1 + 1 != 2 then you’re overloading the “+” symbol, or you lost track of your units, or some other similar problem.
I think the idea was that perhaps for some alien intelligence the “+” symbol could be useless or even meaningless, and something else would be in the place of “the most simple abstract computational operation”. Then the aliens could naively expect that every intelligence in the universe must know this very basic operation.
...and naively expect that their version of mathematics is a universal language, or that an AI with built-in intuitions about arithmetic hasn’t already been predisposed to think about things in human terms. Yes.
Although I’m less concerned ensuring the symbolic links involved are distinct, I will confess. “Yes, but that’s not addition” is missing the point; assuming no other linguistic barriers, somebody who counts sheep interactions as part of the equation is going to continually insist you’re leaving out something out when you insist that putting another sheep in the field only results in two sheep, and the person who insists that one sheep plus one sheep equals two sheep, period, is going to regard “sheep interactions” as utterly irrelevant to the equation.
I think the idea was that perhaps for some alien intelligence the “+” symbol could be useless or even meaningless, and something else would be in the place of “the most simple abstract computational operation”. Then the aliens could naively expect that every intelligence in the universe must know this very basic operation.
Best statement in the entire thread. Calling this hypothetical operation ‘counting’ or ‘+’ is needless obfuscation.
...and naively expect that their version of mathematics is a universal language, or that an AI with built-in intuitions about arithmetic hasn’t already been predisposed to think about things in human terms. Yes.
Although I’m less concerned ensuring the symbolic links involved are distinct, I will confess. “Yes, but that’s not addition” is missing the point; assuming no other linguistic barriers, somebody who counts sheep interactions as part of the equation is going to continually insist you’re leaving out something out when you insist that putting another sheep in the field only results in two sheep, and the person who insists that one sheep plus one sheep equals two sheep, period, is going to regard “sheep interactions” as utterly irrelevant to the equation.