• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Chat For Sun Oct 27th


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242 â‚®
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 October 2002 - 03:02 PM


<BJKlein> Thank you for joining us!
<BJKlein> Official Chat Begins Now
<BJKlein> Topic:
<BJKlein> Intelligence: What is it?
<Anissimov> Let's see
<BJKlein> I'll start with a formal definition and then progress to tear down the idea altogether. (This will only take a few paragraphs, and then we'll open it up to discussion)
<Anissimov> oh my, the rhymezone definition is very odd indeed
<BJKlein> rhymezone?
<Anissimov> rhymezone.com
*** Retrieving #immortal info...
<Anissimov> noun: the operation of gathering information about an enemy
<Ziana> lol
<Anissimov> noun: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience
<Anissimov> I think this shows us that intelligence is not very well-defined in popular circles o.o
<Anissimov> noun: secret information about an enemy (or potential enemy)
<Anissimov> heh
<BJKlein> i'd say ;)
<BJKlein> Consider the idea that each successive stage of evolution of the universe is an increase in complexity of organization and, thereby, an increase in intelligence.
<Anissimov> I don't think complexity of organization suffices for intelligence at all
<Anissimov> "Complexity" is another thing without a very clear-cut definition
<BJKlein> ok..
<Anissimov> I think only a very special type of complexity qualifies as intelligence
<BJKlein> how bout...
<Anissimov> Where did you paste that from btw, bjk?
<BJKlein> http://www.co-i-l.co...elligence.shtml
<BJKlein> my default answer is that we don't or can't know now...
<Anissimov> What is intelligence? In humans, intelligence is a brain with a hundred billion neurons and a hundred trillion synapses; a brain in which the cerebral cortex alone is organized into 52 cytoarchitecturally distinct areas per hemisphere.
<BJKlein> but we jumped the gun a tad
<Anissimov> Intelligence is not the complex expression of a simple principle; intelligence is the complex expression of a complex set of principles. Intelligence is a supersystem composed of many mutually interdependent subsystems - subsystems specialized not only for particular environmental skills but for particular internal functions.
<Anissimov> The heart is not a specialized organ that enables us to run down prey; the heart is a specialized organ that supplies oxygen to the body. Remove the heart and the result is not a less efficient human, or a less specialized human; the result is a system that ceases to function.
<Anissimov> That is the DGI definition
<BJKlein> now, I know where you got that from :)
<Anissimov> We jumped the gun?
<BJKlein> One of the best readings on the topic of general intelligence is Eliezer Yudkowsky's Levels of General Intelligence. http://www.singinst.org/LOGI/ In it Yudkowsky says, "I am admittedly biased against the search for a single essence of intelligence." He notes that past failures in AI research are the result of scientist trying to find this "essence" while they'd probably have more luck simply using the fundamentals we already know.
<Anissimov> Hm, where is that from?
<BJKlein> LOGI
<Anissimov> You just pasted that from LOGI?
<Anissimov> It is about LOGI, it is not LOGI
<BJKlein> http://www.singinst....oundations.html
<BJKlein> just the quote..
<BJKlein> "I am admittedly biased against the search for a single essence of intelligence."
<BJKlein> that's what i'd like to focus on
*** Disconnected
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Looking up your hostname...
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Checking Ident
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Found your hostname
-irc.lucifer.com- *** No Ident response
11 * BJKlein Nickname is already in use.
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- motd was last changed at 7/3/2002 12:03
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- Please read the motd if you haven't read it
*** Attempting to rejoin...
-Global- [Logon News - Mar 15 2002] To obtain help on the system, client software or to locate an operator please join #operhelp
-NickServ- Your nick isn't registered.
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<nielKJB> jeez, connection.. where we're we?
<Anissimov> What was the last thing you say?
<Ziana> wb
<Anissimov> saw*
<nielKJB> I'd like to focus on the idea of where intelligence comes from...
<Anissimov> All current intelligences we know about come from evolution
<Anissimov> You mean "what is it built by"?
<Anissimov> It "comes from" a physical object
<nielKJB> knowing that we'll fail now, but that I could be possible to know in the future
<nielKJB> right, our mind is make of atoms, cells, and connections...
*** nielKJB is now known as BJK
<Anissimov> I would say that, as with most things, there isn't a precise division that makes up "intelligence" and "not-intelligence", but a field of things that are more or less intelligent
<Anissimov> Yep
<BJK> ok so do we agree on the definition of "Intelligence" ?
<Anissimov> What definition were we using?
<Anissimov> The dictionary one?
<Anissimov> Hey Mind
<BJK> heh,, right
<Mind> The definition is the hard part
<Mind> Hiya
<Mind> the definition is the answer
<Anissimov> No, I don't agree with the definition you tool from co-i-l, and I don't agree with the rhymezone one very much either
<Anissimov> took*
<Anissimov> I don't think they're narrow enough
<Anissimov> The definition is the answer to what?
<Mind> Are we talking about intelligence
<Anissimov> Yes
<BJK> just to refresh: You dont think intelligence is increasing complexity?
<BJK> from the big bang onward...
<Anissimov> Nope, too general
<Anissimov> A physical object can exist which is arbitrarily complex but does not have any intelligence whatsoever
<Anissimov> I would say that intelligence is contingent upon the minds doing the judging
<Anissimov> Intelligences could be all around us that we can't see, it's possible
<Mind> Inteeligence:The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
<BJK> ok, I can agree with that.. but I do think that complexity has a part in the definition.
<Anissimov> That definition is somewhat circular
<Mind> I know
<Anissimov> "Knowledge" is defined by intelligence
<Anissimov> If I make a clay mold of something, and look at it, is that mold "telling me its' knowledge" about what the original object looked like?
<Mind> That is the problem...That is why I said, if we can define it we will have answered the question of what intellignece is
<BJK> ok,
<BJK> try this on for size:
<BJK> Intelligence refers to the existence of an implicate order and the nature of structural coupling. It does not refer to the degree of our ability to understand. Our ability to understand is called wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to comprehend the implicate order, the deep patterns, the organization or design of the universe. Wisdom refers to our use of intelligence
<Mind> Intelligence:The faculty of thought and reason
<Anissimov> I think that's an anthropocentric definition of intelligence
<Anissimov> (The one BJK posted)
<Anissimov> Mind, that's just another circular definition, try to break it down
<Mind> I am just throwing out a couple dictionary definitions
<Anissimov> Ah
<Anissimov> They are all circular
<Mind> funny isn;t it
<Anissimov> They appeal to gadgetry which is innate within all of us
<Anissimov> Mental gadgetry, that is
<BJK> ok, but it does take physical things to make 0s and 1s
<Anissimov> Definitions can only be argued in terms of what is empirically testable
<Anissimov> Oh, I think we can say one thing
<Mind> What does "implicate order" have to do with intelligence
<Anissimov> Intelligence is based on information and not the physical manifestation of that information
<Anissimov> Hm, depends on what sort of implicate order that guy was talking about
<Anissimov> Heya MRA
<MRAmes> Yo!
<Anissimov> We're talking about "the definition of intelligence"
<MRAmes> Yep... I read the ad.
<MRAmes> :)
<Anissimov> So far we have determined that the dictionary definitions are poor, I think
<Mind> yes
<MRAmes> Ha.
<Ziana> productive... ;-)
<Anissimov> And then I said " Intelligence is based on information and not the physical manifestation of that information"
<Anissimov> In an attempt to say something unambiguous about it
<MRAmes> I kind of likes Ben Goertzel's definition, but I somehow leaves me wanting more...
<Anissimov> Which is?
<MRAmes> Hold on I'll look it up..
<MRAmes> "The ability to achieve complex goals in a complex environment"
<BJK> Trying to understand the nature of intelligence is similar to to the question of "what is life?" and "Are we immortal?" circular and dificult (impossible) to graps with a non-augmented mind.
<Anissimov> Even with an augmented mind it may be impossible to create an exhaustively precise definition
<MRAmes> Presumably intelligence increases both with increasing goals and increasing environments.
<Mind> In order to verify the intelligence of a system...there must be some measurable output from a system to evaluate
<MRAmes> Anissimov: I agree.
<Anissimov> These are just empirical regularities, probability fields, not much more
<Anissimov> Mind, the output of an "intelligent" system could just look like noise to another intelligent system, perhaps
<Mind> "could"
<MRAmes> Certainly.
<Anissimov> Although the noise might be different in nature than noise generated by normal physical structures and might therefore be unique to minds
<BJK> the overlaps are numerious.. so we'll try to focus on just intelligence...
<Mind> can we agree that there are different levels of intelligence
<Anissimov> Overlaps of what, BJ?
<Anissimov> Yes :)
<Mind> noise =zero intelligence?
<Anissimov> We can always drag out the BPT if we want, also
<Anissimov> perfectly random noise, maybe?
<Mind> perfectly random noise=zero intelligence
<Anissimov> All intelligences are imperfect approximations of the Bayesian Probability Theorem
<Anissimov> Yeah
<MRAmes> I think that, when assessing intelligence, we must include a measure of how well the 'intellegent thing' models itself.
<Anissimov> And then with increasing complexity, I'd say an increasingly smaller portion of the phase space corresponds to real intelligence
<Anissimov> Because a great many complex, nonintelligent objects are physically possible but seem to not appear in a universe which contains intelligence, because complexity appears more readily through the actions of intelligent agents rather than coincidence
<Anissimov> Hm
<Anissimov> True
<MRAmes> Intelligence seems to have many facets... which defy a concise definition.
<Anissimov> Absolutely
<Mind> any system that produces an output that is not random noise must have some sort of intelligence
<Anissimov> Pre-intelligence is what random evolution made before humans
<MRAmes> However, a more lengthy definition may be useful.
<Anissimov> Mind, is a flower intelligent then?
<Mind> yes
<Mind> very rudimentary intelligence
<Anissimov> Just not very much
<Anissimov> How do you define higher intelligence?
<Mind> not sure
<MRAmes> ... useful to allow us to judge levels of intelligence.
<Anissimov> I like MRA's criteria about self-modelling
<Mind> I know
<MRAmes> Definitions first, judgements follow.
<Anissimov> Ok
<MRAmes> Otherwise it is just BS
<MRAmes> :)
<Anissimov> Intelligence puts more and more restrictions on the arrangement of matter within itself, is that ok?
<MRAmes> Not that BS isn't fun sometimes :)
<Anissimov> Intelligences seek internal models that map the external world with higher and higher efficiency
<Anissimov> Deliberately or implicitly
<Mind> A level of intelligence can be defined at how successfully a system works against the 2nd law of thermo....the greater a system can work against entropyt the more intelligent it is...hows that
<MRAmes> Anissimov: Doesn't sound right... how about s/restrictions/useful complexity/
<Anissimov> "s/restrictions/useful complexity/"?
<Mind> The more order a system can produce the more intelligent it is
<MRAmes> "Intellegence imposes more and more useful complexity on...."
<Anissimov> "Order" is often defined by the intelligences that happen to be around, so in that sense it's sort of anthropocentric, or whatever-centric depending on what universe you're looking at, Mind
<Mind> no...order versus random noise
<PD> What's going on?
<Mind> not any anthropomorphic twists invovled
<PD> I posted to the Volition thread again.
<PD> ^^
<Anissimov> We're talking about intelligence, PD
<BJK> PD: the perfect definition of "Intelligent"
<PD> Pfft
<Anissimov> "Order" can be a universe filled with perfect rows of cupcakes
<PD> Intelligence is a cluster concept. :)
<Anissimov> PD: yes
<Mind> Entropy and order are not anthropomorphic
<Anissimov> Perfectly ordered cupcakes are not intelligence
<PD> Entropy and order can be well-defined in information theory
<PD> But intelligence is not well-defined anywhere
<PD> Kind of like "life"
<Mind> mmmm....cupcakes...mmm
<Anissimov> Intelligence imposes a very very special kind of order
<PD> I'm sure intelligence is as vacuous a concept in a mature cognitive science as life is in contemporary molecular biology.
<MRAmes> Int. is a almost a self-defining thing.
<Mind> well ordered cupcakes possess only very rudimentary intelligence
<Anissimov> Not to an entity that thinks cupcakes are very very cool
<MRAmes> ...being self-defining doesn't make it impossible to define though.
<Anissimov> An entity billions of times smarter than you, maybe
<Anissimov> We tend to assume that high intelligence means complex goals
<PD> But then the cupcakes aren't intelligence.
<Anissimov> But this is not necessarily the case
<MRAmes> Ani: why?
<PD> The intelligence is the appreciation of the cupcakes.
<Anissimov> MRA: can you imagine a superintelligence with bacterial supergoals?
<MRAmes> Nope.
<PD> Why not?
<MRAmes> That would make it stupid.
<Anissimov> By human standards
<MRAmes> Stupid != intelligent.
<PD> It wouldn't be stupid, it would just have stupid supergoals.
<Anissimov> *This* is a very critical distinction I think we're hitting upon
<MRAmes> Yep.
<Anissimov> The human definition of smart/stupid has a lot of built-in assumptions about what is "smart"
<MRAmes> This is why we have the Frankenstien complex.
<Anissimov> Lots of which is contingent upon our biology and such
<PD> An SI with the supergoal of watching a lot of TV could persuade you with mind-bogglingly cool philosophical arguments to yield the tube.
<Anissimov> For that entity, making cupcakes might be the "smartest" possible thing to do, while researching science is as pointless as making infinite cupcakes is to us
<MRAmes> A being who has the 'intelligence' to achieve a 'stupid' goal.
<Anissimov> PD, yep
<Anissimov> I think it's anthropocentric to call that goal 'stupid'
<MRAmes> Perhaps so.
<PD> And yeah, goals are only stupid relative to some agent's preferences about what is interesting and what is not.
<Anissimov> But there's something in your meta-moral navigation system that still tells you that it is, huh?
<Anissimov> Mine too
<BJK> What do you call it when a blonde dies her hair brunette?
<PD> I call it stupid.
<PD> Damn
<Another_God> artificial intelligence
<MRAmes> Perhaps I am conflating morality with intelligence... sorry about that.
<Another_God> =)
<Another_God> hi
<Anissimov> Many people do that naturally
<PD> AG!
<Anissimov> Hi AG, long long time no see
<Mind> Everyone knows implicitly that they have some level of "intelligence" that is above most of the other living systems on this planet...but we recognize that there are likely higher levels of intelligence that exist...we are just not sure how to "codify" intelligence
<BJK> there's someone we not seen in a while :) Another_God
<PD> I was gonna say
<MRAmes> Ani: that's no excuse for me :(
<Ziana> hiya
<BJK> Welcome Back
<Another_God> hi.
<PD> But I saw you on PF like 2 days ago
<Mind> hiya
<Anissimov> MRA: then never do it again :)
<Another_God> I just noticed on the email that there was a chat at 8pm sunday.... its 12:44 monay... i can't be too far off the american tme =)
* MRAmes sniffs and blows his nose.
<Another_God> pd = Psych delirium?
<PD> Yes
<PD> Who else?
<Another_God> yeah, i remember that encounter... I told u i love if i remember correctly.. lol
<Another_God> i told u i love u....
<PD> Something like that
<Mind> So does everyone agree that there are different levels of intelligence...even if we cannot define it completelty at this time
<Anissimov> Yes
<MRAmes> yep
<Anissimov> What changes in the physical makeup of an object as it gains in more intelligence?
<BJK> yes.. back to the topic:
<PD> I'd say there are different kinds of intelligence
<Another_God> different levels as in different types, or different levels as in a sliding scale?
<Anissimov> It gets more orderly, in some abstract way
<Ziana> ag- just 45min off
<MRAmes> We have also eliminated overlap of 'morality' and 'intelligence... they are separate.
<PD> Different types
<PD> Definitely
<Another_God> hmmmm....
<Another_God> ok
<Mind> sliding scale
<PD> !@!
<Another_God> haha.
<MRAmes> Uh huh.
<PD> NO
<Another_God> i think its a sliding scale which creates an illusion of different types.
<Anissimov> AG: yep
<BJK> So, Anissimov: can you put together "again" a definition for us?
<Anissimov> Humans suck at seeing scales
<PD> I think it's a bunch of different types that create the illusion of a sliding scale.
<Another_God> =p
<PD> ^^
<MRAmes> For example: A human is more intelligent than a dog, imita fish, ismita bacteria, ismita atom...
<PD> Why?
<Anissimov> Ok, let me think; "Intelligence" has something to do with order, maybe achieving complex goals in a complex environment, has to do with self-modelling and reflectivity, and fighting the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
<Mind> illusion or no illusion...I think levels of intelligence can be defined at how well a system "works" against entropy(2nd law of thermo). The more order a system can produce the more intelligence it has
<Anissimov> Intelligence is hard to define and initial attempts are sometimes anthropocentric, like defining intelligence in terms of squishy animal neurons.
<PD> Bleh, I think this is pointless. :(
<Anissimov> Sort of
<Anissimov> "Intelligence" is just a word
<PD> Yes
<Another_God> i was just thinking the same PD
<Another_God> we have the most...original brain in the history of evolution.
<Another_God> thats all i am willing to claim
<PD> Heh
<Another_God> we have a whole new part to it which most other animals dont hacve
<PD> We have a lot of such parts
<Anissimov> Oh, oh, oh
<PD> What?
<Anissimov> More intelligence leads to a combinatorally larger space of cognitively possible thoughts
<PD> lol
<Anissimov> Combinatorallllly
<Mind> thoughts is just a word
<PD> Yep
<PD> Define thoughts
<Mind> combinatorally is just a word
<Ziana> 'is' is just a word ;-)
<Mind> Anissimov is just a word
<Another_God> just is not just a word
<Anissimov> Conclusion - human words are awful
<Mind> word is just a word
<PD> Language is a dirty trick of the mind that prevents Enlightenment!
<Ziana> anissimov- agreed ;-)
<Another_God> GENAU!
<Another_God> (thats german for Exactly!
<Anissimov> We can only discuss things in terms of empirically testable regularities in external reality :|
<PD> Zen Buddhism vs. Conversational Antirealism
<Mind> That is all we have tonight though...so the "just a word" statement does not get us anywhere
<Another_God> you jsut said that to make yourself sound smart
<PD> Funny.
<Anissimov> To bad our thought-machines are chained to words instead of particles
<Anissimov> too*, even
*** Disconnected
*** Attempting to rejoin...
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<Anissimov> Oops, selfplex
* BJKlein thumps his DSL box
<Another_God> same anisimov.
<PD> I don't think it is meaningful to say that consciousness is an illusion.
<Anissimov> No, "illusion" is the wrong word
<PD> But I think it is just plain false to say that consciousness is not functional.
<Another_God> I find it hard to not follow it when it seems to follow the same sort of thread as evolution. I cant help but believe the whole universe runs on different levels of evolution.
<PD> And by consciousness I mean qualia.
<Anissimov> We can say qualia *are* neuronal clout, tho
<Mind> I can't believe you are talking about quaila
<PD> I don't think you can.
<PD> I think "qualia" is just a very confused way of talking about some kind of functional phenomenon having to do with accessibility.
<PD> But
<Anissimov> I think the qualia word is fun, we can use it as a word to describe the most discrete unit of subjective sensation even if all it is is the aggregate of neurons firing
<BJKlein> Artificial intelligence is no
<BJKlein> match for natural stupidity.
<PD> If you want to make sense of qualia, you have to bring up the subject/object distinction
<Anissimov> Many people blow that distinction up to more than it really is, I think
<Mind> When most people talk about quaila...they usually mean "soul"...I don't think that is what you were implying...is it PD?
<PD> But subjective experience doesn't reduce to neurons firing.
<Anissimov> No?
<PD> No, that's not what they mean.
<Anissimov> I know
<Anissimov> The way *I* use the wor
<Anissimov> word*
<Anissimov> Disregard Chalmers
<PD> They mean subjective experience.
<PD> Like when you look at a tomato
<PD> You see redness
<Anissimov> Subjective experience is neurons firing
<PD> The feel of redness is qualia
<Anissimov> Yes...
<Anissimov> I know that's what they mean :\
<BJKlein> ok, so we have a definition... the question now is can we create Intelligence from scratch?
<Anissimov> heh
<BJKlein> ;-)
<Anissimov> Too bad Sophianic isn't here..
<Anissimov> I think most people in this chatroom would answer yes
<Mind> redness is just a wavelength
<Anissimov> Although many people in conventional #philosophy channels might answer no
<Mind> of light
<Anissimov> PD, where were you going with that?
<Mind> that is what I see
<Mind> nothing more
<Ziana> anissimov- has he ever come to one of these? i don't personally recall seeing him here
<Mind> my eyes see a wavelength of light...it relates this to other objects that have the same wavelength...I see redness in a tomato
<BJKlein> I don't believe Sophianic has been to a chat yet.. could be wrong though
<Anissimov> Ziana: I think he's come once or twice.
<Anissimov> Maybe not on a scheduled chat
<Another_God> me?
<BJKlein> Sophianic
<BJKlein> www.aeterno.com
<Another_God> I haven't been to a chat since immort inst began. I only went to one or two back in bjklein days
<Another_God> and now that i am here, i gotta go already.
<Anissimov> aww, take care
<Another_God> I'm taking emma out to teach her to eskimo roll in a kayak
<BJKlein> seeya Another_God
<Ziana> anissimov- ~nod~
<Mind> see ya
<Another_God> bye
<Another_God> oh, b4 i go
<PD> So
<PD> I was saying this
<PD> Things
<Another_God> i applied for a job over the upcoming summer in this lab...
<PD> But I was rudely interrupted
<PD> What was I saying?
<BJKlein> Great Another_God... genetics?
<Ziana> 'the feel of redness is qualia'
<Another_God> www.genomics.unsw.edu.au/groups/yeast
<PD> Yes
<MichaelA> Hi David
<PD> Why was I saying that?
<Mind> I do not feel red
<DavetheDuke> hey Michael
<MichaelA> Yeah, why were you
<PD> Yes, you do.
<MichaelA> You do, Mind
<Another_God> the research they are doing in the lab s on yeast, and it has to do with Oxidants and the gene activation stuff
<DavetheDuke> So is the topic about qualia tonight maybe?
<Mind> no I do not
<PD> Well
<PD> Maybe you're neurally impaired
<PD> And can't understand colors
<Another_God> all very related to well, oxidative stress (antioxidant stuff)
<MichaelA> The topic is intelligence, we drifted over to qualia and PD is having trouble telling us what he is trying to argue :)
<PD> But otherwise, you feel red.
<Another_God> and why certain genes are activated at certain times.
<DavetheDuke> hehe
<BJKlein> Welcome Back Fellow Immortalist!: Good Luck... drop by the forums and fill us in :)
<Another_God> something that i have decided I want to get into research of
<Mind> I "SEE" red...this color may invoke emotions within me...but the red does not have feeling discretely
<Another_God> thats all. bye
<PD> It doesn't?
<MichaelA> Mind, yea, some people think it does, and they call it "qualia"
<PD> So red doesn't feel any different than yellow?
<MichaelA> Discretely separate from physical reality, that is
<Mind> no
<PD> That's very strange.
<MichaelA> It only does due to the associations that have already pre-formed within my mind
<BJKlein> preformed before birth? thus within the DNA
<Mind> I see yellow too...I think of things that are yellow...and how they have made me feel at some point in the past...and...
<DavetheDuke> Qualia is just the internal subjective experience manifested by a objective materialist substrate. Das is all.
<MichaelA> Either DNA or experience
<Mind> I get some sort of new feeling about hwat I just saw
<PD> Yes
<PD> Duke
<MichaelA> I'm pretty sure everyone in this chatroom agrees about qualia
<PD> But the problem is why there should internal subjective experience at all
<MichaelA> (Everyone that is talking, anyway)
<MichaelA> The "problem", ha ha ha
<PD> Well
<PD> Yeah
<PD> T_T
<MichaelA> Analogous to the "problem" of why life is "life-y"
<BJKlein> PD, that gets us back to the circular questions...
<PD> Not really
<DavetheDuke> ah
<PD> You have to give me a functional explanation for why there is subjective experience
<MichaelA> So, does anybody think femtotechnology is cool? :D
<Mind> I see red... I see yellow...I see blue...I smell perfume...I hear a guitar...these all generate feelings within me based upon other experiences I have had with similar objects in the past...however the sound does not have feeling...red does not have feeling
<MichaelA> PD: people like Chalmers are taking advantage of the fact that our cognitive science isn't advanced enough to do that perfectly yet
<PD> Well
<PD> I think Chalmers is wrong
<MichaelA> Subjective experience is made up of the same stuff as knee-jerk brain wiring like jerking your hand away from the fire
<Mind> redness is just a wavelength of light]
<PD> But I think that is wrong alo.
<PD> also
<MichaelA> Mind, try reading Chalmers's paper and you will see what he is talking about
<Mind> I have read it...THREE TIMES
<MichaelA> Hehe
<PD> Jerking your hand away isn't conscious information
<MichaelA> My bad
<DavetheDuke> What argument do you have PD if you're a materialist?
<PD> I'm not really sure.
<DavetheDuke> Uh.
<Mind> The only part I feel that is of importance is when he specualtes about consciousness being a pettern of information...the other 95% can be thrown in the trash
<PD> I used to be hardcore Dennett
<MichaelA> Mind, then why are you saying "redness is just a wavelength of light"? Of course it is. Chalmers is arguing that the beholder possesses some special apprehension of redness separate from physical law, invoked by the mere wavelength.
<MichaelA> I don't think I'm "hardcore Dennett", necessarily
<PD> I still think Dennett is right, but I don't think we have the conceptual tools of explaining why he is right yet
<MichaelA> Yeha, neuronal clout could easily not be the whole story
<DavetheDuke> How many different forms of materialism are there? I've only known of one.
<PD> I think neuronal clout is a lot better than multiple drafts though
<PD> Because everyone hated dennett after that one
<PD> Hmm, form of materialism
<Mind> I think the beholder only has memories on which to generate emotions about an object (or its redness)...no need to specualate about some special apphrehension apart from the pysics of nature
<PD> forms
<MichaelA> "A consensus may be emerging, but the seductiveness of the paths not taken is still potent, and part of my task here will be to diagnose some instances of backsliding and suggest therapeutic countermeasures."
<MichaelA> Instances of backsliding :D
<PD> Mind, no one is saying that qualia are supernatural
<Mind> Then you agree with me
<PD> But Chalmers and Chomsky and some of them would say that subjective experience is like an irreducible physical thing
<MichaelA> Um, requiring a new set of fundamental laws is supernatural-ish
<PD> Sort of
<Mind> subjective experience is just a special pattern of information
<PD> but people thought newton's gravity was supernatural at first. :)
<MichaelA> PD, you still haven't told us how you differ from Dennett
<PD> Well
<DavetheDuke> Yeah PD
<Mind> rocks do cannot generate this pattern of info...we, with our brain, can
<PD> It's mostly surface differences
<PD> Dennett is kind of like a behaviorist
<MichaelA> Yeah, true
<MichaelA> Kind of
<PD> He thinks that everything important about consciousness can be described in 3-rd person heterophenomenological terms
<MichaelA> Dennett isn't a believer in Strong AI, is that right...?
<PD> No, he's pretty hardcore pro-AI
<MichaelA> Ok, haven't read all his stuff
<PD> But then again, so is Chalmers
<PD> lol
<PD> You should Darwin's Dangerous Idea
<PD> That's book is freaking great.
<MichaelA> Yeah, my friend totally just bought it
<MichaelA> I am grabbing it from him soon
<PD> Heh
<PD> Dennett and Hofstadter are buddies
<PD> Dennett and Rorty are buddies too
<PD> So I like Dennett a lot. :)
<Mind> I my opinion...the greatest thing Dennet has said is regarding Darwin....he said that Darwin shouldn't be known for only the idea of evolution...but that intelligence can arise from "dumb matter"
<PD> Heh
<PD> I wanted to quote Dennett on human nature in that Foucalt vs Chomsky thread on PF
<PD> But I didn't have the book at the time
<MichaelA> Rorty?
<PD> He basically said exactly what I think
<PD> Richard Rorty
<MichaelA> PF? :o
<PD> Physics Forums
<MichaelA> Ah
<PD> I like Rorty and Putnam
<PD> I'm kind of a pragmatist
<MichaelA> That word is all-too-overused nowadays, imo
<PD> Which is why I hate moral objectivism so much ^^
<PD> I mean pragmatism in its proper philosophical sense
<PD> Although it's still kind of broad
<Mind> I am undefinable
<PD> Hmm
<MichaelA> I think lots of the opposition to moral objectivism is based on 1) looking too closely at how humans differ on issues without seeing that the vast majority of our complexity is shared and 2) the assumption that picking an objective morality means someone is going to force it upon you
<Mind> how is that for a philosophical statement
<MichaelA> That is also a cliche statement, Mind :D
<Mind> lol
<PD> lol
<MichaelA> Words need not be "labels"
<PD> Just because humans share a moral conceptual scheme doesn't mean that the scheme is right
<MichaelA> I am a transhumanist, period
<MichaelA> Rightness is defined by the constituent sentiences in the system we are talking about
<Mind> by moral objectivism you mean "good v. evil"...no in between
<PD> Moral objectivism = moral statements have truth values
<Mind> ok
<PD> If you think that truth consists in correspondence with reality
<PD> I don't. :)
<Mind> Are you a nihilist PD?
<PD> No.
<PD> I'm a pragmatist
<Mind> ok
<PD> I don't like metaphysics
<PD> I think metaphysics are pointless
<Mind> me either
<PD> I think objectivity is really just intersubjectivity
<MichaelA> I think most of philosophy is pointless :(
<PD> That's what Rorty would say ^^
<MichaelA> Yeah, but they still obey the default of getting married, having children, buying nice things for themselves, etc
<PD> Who does?
<MichaelA> Any philosophers that claim to take the position that this-or-that field of thinking is useless
<MichaelA> Wittengenstein (sp) is another, right?
<PD> http://www.marxists....ks/us/rorty.htm
<PD> Read it when you have time
<PD> I don't see what marrying or having children has to do with thinking that metaphysics is not useful to talk about
<Mind> I am quite grounded in the current and definable objective reality...I do not "trust" my subjective experience to lead me into any new realities...I am plenty happy working with other pragmatic people to refine our definition of reality and truth
<MichaelA> Oops, that probably looked like a gigantic non-sequitur from your point of view
<MichaelA> Sorry
<PD> lol
<Mind> lol
<PD> Mind, that's kind of a strange thing to say.
<MichaelA> Intersubjectivity is an approximation of objectivity but is not it
<PD> Well
<PD> I would say it is. :)
<Mind> Maybe I am just strange
<PD> Or let me put it this way
<PD> I think there is objectivity, but it is contextual
<MichaelA> PD, what I mean is that relative to something even-slightly-better-than-human, all our philosophy is blatantly wrong, so anyone interested in actually deriving more truth from philosophy would try to make a smarter mind
<PD> And the context has to be intersubjectively determined
<Mind> yah yah
<Mind> I hear you
<MichaelA> Reading an gaining knowledge through conversation and stuff is just rearranging the crappy brains we already have, mistaking that for learning more about truth is, blah
<PD> lol
<PD> I wanna make a thread about that
<PD> I'd rant a lot
<Mind> Reading and gaining knowledge is a lot better than watching TV
<Mind> popular culture programs on TV
<PD> "Smarter" doesn't mean better, or more truthful, or whatever. It just means a different entity operating in a different conceptual space, dealing with different problems.
<MichaelA> It can easily mean having beliefs that correspond more tightly to reality
<MichaelA> Mind, of course
<PD> It doesn't have to.
<MichaelA> All TV is popular culture, the way I see it
<MichaelA> PD, truth-smartness, then?
<Mind> I would rather correspond here...it is much more enlightening
<PD> I'm a coherentist about truth.
<PD> I think truth doesn't have to do with correspondence to reality
<PD> *anything to do with
<MichaelA> *waits for the next sentence*
<PD> Heh
<MichaelA> *Winds up his crossbow-of-intellectual-attack*
<PD> Look up truth, coherentist theory of at http://plato.stanford.edu
<Mind> you fellows have knowledge that I do not, I enjoy discussing new and old topics
<PD> Poor MA, i keep bombarding him with long and obtuse links
<MichaelA> Very obtuse :(
<PD> Anyway
<MichaelA> Hi Tboe
<tboe> !
<PD> I'll start a thread about realism and epistemology and all that good stuff sometime eventually
<MichaelA> What's your statement of the day, Tboe?
<PD> lol
<Mind> what a staement
<MichaelA> Thanks for sharing!
<PD> So what were we talking about?
<MichaelA> Argh
<PD> You were going to shoot me with a crossbow or something
<MichaelA> Can you sum up the "coherentist" stuff in a few words?
<MichaelA> Hey Laz
<Lazarus> HI Michael
<MichaelA> Truth is the correspond of belief to reality, regardless of philosophy
<PD> It means that the truth or falsity of statements depends on a context
<foodisyummyDavetheDuke> fleeeeeeems
<PD> Basically
<PD> Of premises and assumptions
<MichaelA> Yeah, that's the word E used
<Lazarus> Oh boy I get to arrive on the Relativity principle of truth
<MichaelA> The existence or nonexistence of a quark is an objective fact and irrespective of context
<PD> If you look at the way truth is treated in mathematical logic
<MichaelA> All higher truths are derivable based on probabilistic assumptions
<PD> It has nothing to do with corresponding to reality or not, it has to do with what the system is like that you are working within
<PD> That's coherentism
<Lazarus> Is that like a best case scenario?
<Lazarus> Or a lesser of evil type probabilistic assumption?
<PD> You could say that quarks really exist in a world that is "out there" and be a coherentist about truth.
<MichaelA> It is
<Mind> Quarks exist in our reality
<MichaelA> That's just a semantic difference, PD
<PD> Maybe
<PD> It's a big difference, heh
<Lazarus> You could say tha tquarks exist in here too, since they exist at thesubatomic as well
<PD> Huuuge difference
<MichaelA> Ok, elaborate then
<MichaelA> You type pretty fast when you want to ^^
<PD> MA, look up "realism, semantic challenges to" at that stanford site.
<PD> HAHA
<MichaelA> No no no :|
<PD> A lot of arguments from philosophy of language attack realism
<PD> But they all assume that truth is a matter of correspondence
<PD> If you're a realist and a coherentist, most of those arguments don't apply
<MichaelA> Oh boy, most of those assume that language can be used as a precise specification of external reality
<PD> This is very complicated TT
<Lazarus> Perceptinof truth varies withthe obsever but the subject, remains true to form,
<PD> No, they aim to show that human concepts don't correspond to reality at all
<Lazarus> <sic> I couldn' resist the pun
<PD> They are just tools for coping with the world
<PD> Like language is not isomorphic to reality
<PD> So it makes no sense to say "quarks are out there" Quarks are just things we make up to control our environment
<MichaelA> An approximation of truth is a correspondence, not a "don't correspond to reality at all"
<Mind> ie. quarks exist in our currently defined reality
<PD> Yeah, but they would argue that they don't approximate truth at all
<Lazarus> PD Language is only Quasi mathematical, Mathematics is a subset of language, not necessary the other way around
<MichaelA> I think you might be misrepresenting them, "at all" is too extreme
<PD> Nope
<PD> Laz, I never said that though.
<PD> I was just using it as an analogy
<Lazarus> Precisely the area of contentinPD
<MichaelA> That's saying that no statements are any more true than any other
<PD> No, because they don't subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth
<PD> Like Rorty would say that calling a statement true is the same as calling it a useful statement to say.
<MichaelA> You don't need a corres. theory of truth to see that some statements are more true than others
<Lazarus> The problem with reflect truth in language is that lange is not a precise method of expression
<MichaelA> True, truth is useful
<MichaelA> Yeah, Laz
<PD> Heh yeah
<MichaelA> Some philosophers confuse that in thinking that language isn't useful *at all* for describing reality
<Lazarus> Hence that is why matthematics as a language is chosen as the best one for hte job
<PD> Then again "my language means the limits of my world" :)
<Lazarus> Like my dyslexic typing, not accurate but comprehensible
<PD> Well, they don't think that language isn't useful for describing reality, per se. They just don't think that this is what language is for.
<PD> not
<PD> Damn
<PD> it
<Lazarus> See :)
<PD> Heh
<MichaelA> Language isn't "for" anything except insofar as individual humans call it so
<PD> That's my line. :)
<Lazarus> NOw I wouldn' go that far MA
<MichaelA> But that doesn't mean that it can't correspond to reality
<Mind> mathematics is the best language for describing our currnet reality
<PD> But there's no evidence that it corresponds to reality, and there's no reason to say that it corresponds to reality.
<PD> In fact, all the semantic arguments aim to show that the idea of language corresponding to reality is incoherent.
<MichaelA> There certainly is
<Mind> I think it does correspond to reality
<Lazarus> It can correspond extrememly well to reality like Calculus approaching the infinite, bt just not as accurattely
<MichaelA> An approximation is a correspondence
<MichaelA> An approximation is different than something completely wacky
<PD> But again, why do you think it's approximating anything?
<MichaelA> Truths allow us to know about and shape external reality
<Mind> mathematics describes information....our reality is information...there is no other reality
<MichaelA> Because truth allows me to make better predictions about external reality than untruth does
<Lazarus> Language is a social construct and it has variablity incorporate within common translatable standard, but those standards vary widely
<PD> Well, that's what I would say. :)
<Lazarus> Truth is a cognitive top-down dillema viewed from a bottom-up perspective
<Mind> I gotta go
<PD> But if you think about it, your tool of telling stories about reality doesn't have to correspond to reality in order to be useful.
<MichaelA> Bye Mind
<Mind> I was great talking with you guys again...thanks
<Lazarus> Was that you MInd?
<MichaelA> Lazarus, that sort of makes sense
<MichaelA> PD, they are more useful is they correspond more tightly
<MichaelA> if*
<PD> Not necessarily
<Lazarus> The problem is that when talking about truth we do so a best subjet to the Heisenberg principle
<MichaelA> If not, that's coincidental
<MichaelA> If they are noncoincidentally useful
<PD> Heh
<PD> Quantum mechanics sort of relevant here
<PD> Because of transcendental idealism.
<MichaelA> Lazarus, that's only a problem with "absolute truth", which may or may not be attainable, but within the human cluster, the Uncertainty Principle actually has very little to do with truth
<MichaelA> Oh my
<PD> Bohr and Heisenberg were big idealists
<Lazarus> Oh? I don' think that is true at all Micheal.
<PD> So they would say that the world that is "out there" is just "data"
<PD> QUantum superpositions, wave functions, etc
<MichaelA> All these words are often what humans make up just to gain social status which is an extension of evolutionary programming that just executes the ol' adaptations :\
<Lazarus> In fact truth at the relativistic human scale is even more elusive
<PD> There are no real things, like cats.
<PD> Cats are just something that minds make up to make sense of data
<MichaelA> Sure
<Lazarus> Look at MOral Absolutism versus ethical relativism
<PD> Which is transcendental idealism
<MichaelA> But calling a cat a "cat" is better than calling it a "dog"
<PD> What Kant said
<PD> Right, it's more useful!
<MichaelA> Sure, I can be a transcendental idealist but still believe in a correspondence theory of reality, then
<PD> Not because it corresponds better.
<DavetheDuke> night yall
<MichaelA> Noncoincidental usefulness *is* correspondence is reality
<Lazarus> a rose is a rosa y gato es un cat
<PD> Why does it have to correspond to be useful?
<PD> :)
<Lazarus> useful is a function of language
<MichaelA> Because otherwise you get smacked in the face, because your belief about an imminent smacking was wrong
<Lazarus> clearly MA is right about that biut language is much more than that
<MichaelA> Untrue beliefs suck for intelligent entities at times, other times they are good
<PD> But you are assuming that there are things in the real word like faces and things that can smack them
<Lazarus> I wuold like a good smack in the face but it would depend greatly on the manner and whom was doing the smacking
<MichaelA> If a hand is coming at your face, you can think about the philosophy as much as you want, but in the end, it burns down to one belief about an empirically testable regularity or another
<MichaelA> Faces and things that can smack them are empirically testable regulariies in external reality
<Lazarus> Expresion is ALL multiple meaing MA that is why Translator Programs suck and your AI can' do poetry just children's rhyming
<PD> Ok, but what if hands and faces are just fictional characters in a story that we tell about what happens?
<PD> In order to cope with the world
<MichaelA> Laz, I didn't say words atomically specify regularities in reality
<Lazarus> a smack is a kiss too
<Lazarus> it is also money
<MichaelA> and something else
<MichaelA> PD, it's still an approximation
<MichaelA> Not "something totally completely out therE"
<PD> Bleh
<MichaelA> Which is fun to philosophize about, but wrong
<PD> How can you show me that it's wrong?
<Lazarus> it is the case that when you learn enoughuses for any word meaning can exapnd beyond any one of them, not "OUT There" (shades of X-Files) but
<PD> lol
<Lazarus> the sum is reater then the whole
<MichaelA> Stories that humans tell about external reality are empirically verifiable
<Lazarus> greater
<PD> But empirical verifiability is just part of the story. :)
<MichaelA> Really?
<PD> *giggles madly*
<MichaelA> *starts tying a noose around own neck*
<PD> Look, here's the point
<PD> You could say that the whole of a language is vaguely isomorphic to reality
<MichaelA> Yes, that's what I was saying the whooole time
<PD> But you can pick out words in that language and say that they correspond to objects in reality
<MichaelA> Approximately
<PD> Not at all :)
<Lazarus> He did say "could", watch out MA
<PD> Blah
<MichaelA> Yes at all :|
<PD> I make lots of typos
<PD> I mean "can't"
<MichaelA> You can say they roughly do
<PD> Well, you can say you can, but you can't prove to me that they can.
<MichaelA> You just said that language is vaguely isomorphic
<PD> yes, the whole language
<MichaelA> Only because of subjective deixis, if anything
<Lazarus> BUt typos make it more intersting when you have to ague against yourself and defend both sides
<PD> Is vaguely isomorphic to the whole of reality
<PD> lol!
<MichaelA> And parts of the language are approximate isomorphs to parts of external reality
<MichaelA> Which, by the way, is empirically testable :D
<PD> They could be
<MichaelA> *empirically testable*
<PD> How?
<MichaelA> That's why scientists call some theories "nice" and others "not so nice"
<Lazarus> PD are you Psychodelirium?
<PD> But pragmatists would just say that "nice" theories are useful theories and "not so nice" are not so useful.
<PD> Yeah, I am.
<MichaelA> If someone says that objects fall at 5m/s squared in a vacuum, and someone says 9.8, we can run a test to see which phrase correponds more tightly to external reality
<Lazarus> WHy don' you just grant the utlity of Empiricism If that is all he is arguing for?
<PD> Why do you think it's corresponding?!
<MichaelA> lol
<PD> I know empiricism is useful
<MichaelA> So you're saying 5.0 corresponds just as tightly as 9.8 does?
<PD> I'm saying "useful" and "corresponds" don't mean the same thing
<MichaelA> 5.0 is just as useful as 9.8?
<MichaelA> You are looking at "corresponds" as "exact correpondence", I never said that
<PD> No, 9.8 is more useful than 5.0, but you can't say anything about which one corresponds and which one doesn't.
<Lazarus> Exactly and is about as good as Zeno' paradox at gettingto the truth, It will get you about half way.
<MichaelA> Jeez, you're talking about an arbitrary "reality" then that doesn't have much to do with the world we see
<PD> That's the point
<MichaelA> Can we make up a new word to decribe what we're testing when we drop an object in a vacuum?
<Lazarus> in precise controlled conditins it might even get a 99.99999% but only under VERY controlled conditions
<PD> The reality could be arbitrary, and we can't tell
<MichaelA> It's better to assume it's not
<PD> So it's pointless to talk about theories that correspond and theories that don't. We should only talk about useful or useless theories.
<MichaelA> Probabilistically
<MichaelA> From now on, when I say "corresponds", read "useful"
<PD> That's cheating.
<MichaelA> Not at all.
<MichaelA> :)
<PD> Yes, it is!
<PD> h4x0r
<MichaelA> I can make words mean whatever I want, see
<PD> Ah, now you get it!
<Lazarus> AHh bet can you communicate your chosen meaning?
<MichaelA> No, there is still a collective memetic definition which pressures my usage into a tiny quadrant
<MichaelA> I have to *explicitly* request deviation
<Lazarus> The classic mistake you are making Michael is that definitinis the provice of the listener
<PD> Quantum physics is more useful to voodoo, but both are just different stories we tell to cope with our world. :)
<Lazarus> definition
<MichaelA> One correponds more tightly to external reality :)
<MichaelA> One is more useful for modelling external reality and building things
<PD> But you can't say that unless you're looking at it from a vantage point where you see what external reality is like and can say "aha, they really are alike"
<MichaelA> Which is what we're concerned with
<Lazarus> province* Crap I wil have to slow down... I am unable to read my own handwriting again
<MichaelA> We may be in the Matrix, but in the Matrix, if things fall at 9.8m/s squared, then that is truth
<PD> That's not the point
<Lazarus> Truth is what you make it?
<PD> The point is that you can't say what external reality is like.
<Lazarus> sounds like a nice inventin but not true
<PD> You can only say which stories are useful.
<MichaelA> Pick a new word
<MichaelA> They are useful only because they correpond to external reality, otherwise they'd be useless
<PD> Why?
<Shadow> Don't you experience external reality sensorily?
<MichaelA> Even if you don't like the words "external reality" because of the implications, that's still what it is
<Lazarus> How about we talk about an old one,,Define this Universal Altruism idea?
<MichaelA> Philosopher just shun words like "external reality" because of the behavior of the philosophers that use the word
<PD> Heh
<PD> You can invoke realism to explain why some theories work and others don't.
<PD> But
<MichaelA> I can also invoke it to grab for an object
<PD> You still can't say that this is because some correspond and others can't.
<Lazarus> External to what? I think it is my skin you are talking about but perhaps the vview from my brain is more like it.
<MichaelA> No, Laz, I meant brain
<MichaelA> Even if we are all tinkertoys processing info
<PD> Like I said, language could correspond to reality only in a completely holistic sense.
<Lazarus> Regardless it is still the arbitrary divison generated by identity
<PD> And it would then make no sense to pick out particular arrangements of words and claim that they correspond to particular tihngs in reality.
<Lazarus> The Mind exists by virtue of self awareness
<MichaelA> PD, if you give me an inch, I'll take a light-year. If all of language can loosely correspond to all of reality, then why can't human impressions be used to talk about external reality on a more specific level?
<PD> I'm not saying they can't
<PD> They could
<PD> Or not
<Lazarus> I accept this holds for all life, not t\just humans
<PD> There's no way to tell
<MichaelA> Lazarus, is a camera that watches its own output "self-aware"?
<PD> So the issue is moot, from a pragmatic perspective. We can't talk about an external reality. We should only talk about the world as we know it.
<MichaelA> shifting the conversation now


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users