Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. My wish is to discuss not simply to engage in didactic pronouncements and quotations absent any thought. In response to my asking if you wish to talk and think... you ask me to stop thinking and essentially not engage in a real conversation. I am asking if you are willing to discuss the hierarchy of knowledge and how that would apply to any rational application of a standard, and yes I think using the apple tree as an example will help clarify thinking on the subject... precisely because it is unpolluted by all the baggage associated with human social interaction. Can we discuss this?
  2. ? When you are ready to stop evading, ready to talk and to think let me know.
  3. What do YOU mean, objectively speaking when you say "fitting to his nature and to existence". Who judges and by what "standard" do you assess what is "fitting to his nature"? Defining the proper "standard" as simply one that "fits his nature", is either circular (the good is what is good) or subjective or both. This is a distraction from the OP which tries to distinguish between standards based on "Man's life" (whatever that is) and "Your life".
  4. As a separate issue, I have observed on numerous occasions, aspiring Objectivists conflating "Objective" with "Universal". This is a BIG mistake.
  5. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. The purpose of the discussion I'm trying to have is not to just pronounce some answer... but to elicit thought and to arrive at a destination with whYNOT. Let me just point out, whatever the knowledge which goes into ANY "standard" it must pertain to something in reality. The knowledge which pertains to something in reality must be derived from and consistent with ALL you know about that something in reality which knowledge of course is hierarchical and pertains to the entirety of the relevant nature and identity of the something. If I said "all your knowledge" about this apple tree (relevant to your aim) excludes what you know about trees, or plants, or living things, or entities... in what way would that make any sense? What if you were tasked with writing down a "guide", "recipe", "owner's manual", or "standard" for taking care of a specific apple tree which you were to give to a care taker robot to ensure the flourishing of the tree. Would your "guide", "recipe", "owner's manual", or "standard" be derived from and consistent with ALL your knowledge about the apple tree? What does this include or exclude? There is no dichotomy between a thing and all that it IS. A manual for this tree must be derived from and consistent with all knowledge about the apple tree which includes all relevant knowledge about apple trees, trees, plants, living things and entities. In that sense, the proper manual for "this apple tree" ALREADY includes everything relevant which you would also find in a proper manual about "apple trees". Ignorance is counter productive, knowledge is hierarchical. Applying a double standard to the rigor of logic applied in generating a manual for "this apple tree" versus generating a manual for "apple trees" is a straw man, whether intentional or not. [Even though the more critical thinkers reading this will already know it, I would just like to note that this is in no way a discussion about concretes versus abstractions, nor about the use of concrete bound rules versus the use of principles]
  6. Reconcile? In the apple tree example, since flourishing of the tree is the aim, a standard for action should include any and all knowledge, concepts, and principles which you could use to choose and ensure your actions are proper and effective for achieving your aim.
  7. This is the double standard of logic and straw man in your thinking which you have not shown is true. Not at all. How do you propose that a rational person with proper concept formation and mastery of abstractions and principles suddenly lose integrity ? The logical implication you are making is that mere contemplation of any particular existent, automatically is accompanied by some kind of concrete bound psychosis which jettisons principles and concepts for momentary sensation, that contemplation also causing an amnesia surrounding the particular and its whole nature which one had previously grasped through integration and concept formation. This sort of assumption has not here been shown to have any basis. Again, I ask: suppose that apple tree is (for whatever reason) my greatest joy and I want it to flourish. To that end, how would actions consistent with and defined by a standard of its flourishing, not be conducive to achieving that goal, the good, which IS its flourishing? Please try not to evade here... let’s hammer it out.
  8. Is this applying the same logical rigour as you apply when you analyze a standard of man qua man? I detect a double standard. How is it an answer of productivity versus hedonism could generally apply as a principle to man but not generally apply as a principle to you who ARE a man? Are you somehow an exception to which principles of man do not apply? If you have an apple tree and your goal is to keep it alive, and you keep track of your success and want to rate the effectiveness of your actions, how would choosing as a standard the well being of your apple tree be somehow deficient if you take into account all you know about apple trees the fact that it IS an apple tree?
  9. If you ARE a man (existence is identity) what would be different about a standard based on your survival qua WHAT you are (again existence is identity)? How would/could the standards differ (applying the same quality of logic to each case)? I remind you, in action, choice, general capacity, what are possible to men is possible to you and vice versa.
  10. Fascinating. This is not how I think about this at all (btw what do you mean by "mind-independent numerosity"?) Whole numbers for me count quantities of things even when simply "counting" time, places, relationships... etc and an even quantity of things has the unique quality of being capable of being separated into two groups of equal quantities (without violating the integrity of any of the members). Counting fingers one way on the hand, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, counts quantities of fingers while traversing the hand. If one starts from the left, then there is one leftmost finger, then two leftmost fingers, then three... If one starts from the right, then there is one rightmost finger, then there are two, then three... The facts that the grouping of the leftmost and rightmost fingers are not the same is a statement about the relationships of the fingers in reality, they are spaced at various locations along left-right. Even if we construe the counting as merely LABELING positions from the right or left... the labels are still statements about direction and spatial relationships to the other fingers in reality as well as the quantity of positions/fingers. The second finger from the right is the fourth finger from the left... I.e. it IS THE finger which is both second from the right and fourth from the left. Is the finger itself ODD or EVEN? Certainly one could label a finger ODD or EVEN (you can label a spoon a fork) but a "finger" is not something which, as such, possesses oddness or evenness. Now, what about a label "2 and 4"? Can a label, as such, be odd or even? "2 and 4" is not "a number", in fact no label (qua label) can "BE" a number, it is a label. Now a label of course can contain concrete symbols representing numbers, like "2" or "4". Can any "number" which is generally represented by a concrete symbol in a label labeling a finger be odd or even? well yes... and because that thing IS a number it must be odd or even. Imagine I decide to call my cat "three" or "four"... it is still true (in everyday English parlance) that I cannot "name it as a number" which is both odd and even... but this says nothing about cats, it is a fact of reality about what numbers refer to in general... and those groups of things in reality, referred to by any single number, cannot be both even and odd. English is far from a perfect philosophical language... we do not have pronouns to distinguish between real or imaginary or to color terms as referring to reality or mental contents (I so wish we had such pronouns or logical "genders" like the French "un" or "une" and "la" or "le") Consequently, I find distinguishing between fact (A) on the one hand and (B) and (C) to be fraught with difficulty... to what fact is one actually referring by the string of words in A? EDIT1: Even the terms "odd" and "even" are potentially fraught with difficulty. IF "EVEN" refers to a property of a referent number, i.e. "2" "12", as such, and it is defined "those references to quantities of things, such that those quantities can be split into two even quantities", then technically no group of things are "even", the numbers which refer to them are even. BUT IF "EVEN" refers to a property of the quantities of things themselves referred to by the number "2" "12", and it is defined as "a property of a quantity of things which can be split into two even quantities". then technically "numbers" are not "even" as such, the quantities to which they refer are "even", and for shorthand we can label the number as even based upon the kind of quantity to which it refers.... I tend to suspect (and my apologies for the lack of technical rigor.. I am limited by ignorance/innocence of formal philosophy) that all facts are facts entirely independently of the existence of mind in the world. In fact that seems to be what distinguishes fact from non-fact ("falsehood" is not quite commensurate... as touched on obliquely below). The fact that I think, is not metaphysically caused by or metaphysically dependent upon my thinking, in the exact same way that the fact that an electron is, is not metaphysically caused by its being... the electron simply is. So facts about what people think are in that sense independent of their thinking... now they ARE thinking, and that is a metaphysical fact but it is not a fact which has a priori genesis (primacy of consciousness) in the mind... new thoughts spring into reality and those are new facts (independent of mind) which can be identified. It seems then that all facts, at any one time, are metaphysical absolutes, which are not metaphysically dependent upon the existence of any mind. EDIT2: Mappings of any kind are relative, but so are relationships in reality. What is the significance that one can identify those relationships in multiple ways, which is a direct result of the relative nature of reality? Now arbitrary ordering (random numerals for fingers) seems of a different category because the labels are not meaningfully related to reality. And finally a relationship of each and every thing to itself ... this does not seem "relative" or "arbitrary" at all... and can such be called a "mapping" when there are no alternatives? (Sorry for this added complication... but I have never been comfortable with the word "fact". Does the concept "fact" refer solely to metaphysical existence, or is it used to signify "statements" about the world, which themselves refer to metaphysical existence... I suppose the simple question is can facts be true or false [now that sounds nutty], or is it that facts simply ARE... now that I think of it a fact is a fact it is something metaphysically absolute...) I do not want to clutter up your thread, but I would like to understand your thoughts a bit better. Would you be willing to have a brief discussion in a new thread? Can you think of a title which succinctly identifies the distinction between facts (A) on the one hand and facts (B) and (C) on the other? New thread Dream Weaver? I might be completely off base here... if I am I apologize... and am here for discussion and illumination.
  11. Not sure if I was clear... the point of my question was to determine whether any additional "logic" was happening in a horizontal integration, i.e. something which could uniquely be identified as part of a horizontal integration and not a vertical one. Finding a contradiction while engaging in a "horizontal integration" or a two connected "vertical integrations" seem also to be the same exercise. I am missing something about the difference between the following 1) H(A,B) and 2) V(A,C) AND V(B,C) This seems to describe a simple failure of any kind of rational integration, 1) or 2), by butchering the concepts as you describe. I'm interested in the techniques of integration on properly well formed concepts, and in particular the "vertical" and "horizontal" aspects. Your description of horizontal integration is: It seems that the crux of horizontal integration is finding the x1...xn which are related to and hierarchically prior to both. It appears as though H(A,B) is a combination of V(A, x1)...AND V(A,xn) AND V(B, x1)...AND V(B, xn) where x1...xn are all the facts which are related to both A and B and are hierarchically prior to both. So I guess to be more succinct, is it true that: H(A,B) = V(A,x1)... AND V(A, xn) AND V(B,x1)... AND V(B, xn) or is H something more than this?
  12. Fascinating, from your description it would seem that performing a horizontal integration of A and B (with hierarchically prior C) is the same as performing two vertical integrations (A and C well as B and C). Is this correct? If not, could you describe how integrating A and B with use of hierarchically prior C, is the different from vertically integrating A and C as well as vertically integrating B and C?
  13. You never need isolate yourself while you are working things out. I am not sure what kinds of "interactions" you have dealt with in the past, but please don't be uncomfortable working through ideas for yourself WHILE exchanging those ideas with us here. We selfishly appreciate your presence and participation here.
  14. AKilah Be careful not to ascribe causality (or self-causality) to the instantaneous metaphysical existence of anything. An electron does not cause its own metaphysical existence, it simply IS, neither do I cause myself to EXIST (at this very instant) by my act of sitting, I simply at this moment AM. A cause presupposes an effect and an effect presupposes a change or action of at least some kind. So generally speaking, changes or actions are what are caused, not metaphysical existence of things as such. Conversion of energy into matter or the reverse, changes in orientation, position, velocity, configurations, and functions of natural constituents. A leaf rots or a tree falls, or a star explodes.. all changes have causes. The changes are caused (or self-caused), not the sheer existence of the natural stuff which undergoes those changes. Not all change requires a cause even though all causes presuppose some change... a grain of sand flying through space. HAD a cause, but nothing causes it to continually BE or to continue to fly... it simply IS. Of course my current state of being, the particular configuration of my constituents were caused (parents, evolution, atomic element formation in stars)... and my actions have causes (brain activity, neural signaling, biochemical reactions in muscles), but my metaphysical existence is not self-caused in the instant... I simply metaphysically AM. This in no way contradicts the fact that I had to act yesterday in order to be alive today, or that if I do not act at all right now I will soon be dead (after I stop breathing... ).
  15. Nonsense. The value of discussion is to work out things... not to bandy about things one has already worked out. You belong here as you are. First, I only attributed rationalists with such a motive... there are many scientists who do not fall into that category... Second, I was mostly being colorful, in reality the mistake is an honest one, especially for rationalists, although being fooled by the fool who fools himself creates the same result only by a slightly different route. My point is that the sham evaporates when you see the simplicity and the mechanistic brute force of fake intelligence.. I agree that until we understand consciousness when we look at a real intelligence it will be baffling but once we have a science of consciousness we’ll be able to identify its fundamentals. I do agree with most of what you say and perhaps now believe we are in agreement in principle. I’ll not concede but state (i was never in disagreement with you on this) that the thing I think you see is that things are what’s they are and the properties they exhibit, how they act etc is in accordance with their nature. This is solid Objectivism... in principle and in reality the fake behemoth will never exhibit everything a real consciousness does... the PRACTICAL problem with a text interface is that it is an EXCEEDINGLY poor instrument for identification of things in reality. Only a real Monet would look like a Monet to an expert under bright lights and close up... enough for people to pay Via Sotheby’s millions based on that assessment of reality. But a common person wearing a partial blindfold at 100 feet in a dimly lit room?... well now that’s not a fair test is it?
  16. Define bizzarre and infuriating. If it can be defined, you can build a filter for it... or train around it. You forgot to mention, after we guess who the fake person is, Google hires us at exorbitant salaries with decades long contracts to train the thing to APPEAR to think.. up to a certain wall of evasion, non-integration, and level of effort... where it is to APPEAR either unwilling or incapable of going any further... This kind of wall, IS a trait of many real humans. The behemoth need only to APPEAR to have it. I like this: BUT this annoying "person" is outwardly the same as a real person who might troll the forum. This sounds nice: but it is (inadvertently) a straw man. [It LITERALLY is likely true but you are attempting to use it to mean something else] The claim that something can APPEAR to have human level-intelligence is NOT the same as the claim that something HAS human-level intelligence. Remember the ice berg, and remember the communication of the product of intelligence is not the same as the presence of intelligence. IMHO You may have starting thinking about the definition of intelligence in terms of the rationalists (the many non Objectivists who you have referenced).... some of whom no doubt equate the concept intelligence with anything which produces what we see intelligent things as communicating. For centuries only rational humans (no animals or plants) could add 2+2 to get 4. A naïve person, looking at the output of a calculator (or an abacus for that matter) and without knowing how it works, might equate the paltry superficial product of the "symbol 4" in response to the input of symbols 2, +, and 2, with the kind of intelligence we need to add 2 + 2 in our minds and say "4", and hence that person might ascribe human intelligence (even rationality of some kind) to the machine. On getting to the "4" which is communicated, a human and a abacus are not the same and do not do the same things: that they produce the same superficial result is not indicative of how that result was produced. What intelligence IS, is not simply taking inputs and producing outputs... intelligence is not only "processing information". In fact, the word intelligence, which predates calculating machines by centuries, implicitly means a specific kind of higher consciousness, which plants and insects lack, and which Dolphins, Chimps and Man possess (to varying degrees). Although intelligent consciousnesses can process information, processing information is not the process of intelligent conscious thought itself. The RATIONALISTS have taken the concept of a type of consciousness in reality and attempted to redefine it in terms of abstract information, which is disastrous and anti-conceptual... it involves some wall of evasion, non-integration or is anti-effort...therefore, I posit that a sufficiently trained behemoth CAN impersonate a RATIONALIST... ............... I'd like to add we are fallible, and finite. A sufficiently sophisticated machine can generate an image which looks absolutely real up to the precision of our eyes, in terms of resolution, our knowledge of shading and perspective, and our experience of things in the real world. Our ability to consciously (unaided by scientific instrumentation) identify aspects of reality are limited, even if you were to ascribe high regard to intuition and pattern recognition, we can now be gamed by artificial pictures, sounds and video, (to varying degrees in various contexts) but one day the behemoths will be able to fake all of these and more to a point an unaided human would be unable to tell an artificial scene from a real one. I propose that in principle, the this kind of gaming of a finite fallible individual consciousness is in principle unlimited (only limited by the then current level of brute processing power), and eventually an unaided individual can and will be fooled by a blind behemoth of sufficient training and capacity. THIS WILL HAPPEN FOR THE NORMAL TURING TEST RELATIVELY SOON (<100 years). I WILL AGREE with you that given an army of scientists and likewise an unlimited time and scientific instrumentation with commensurate processing power on its side, studying text messages from a fixed capacity behemoth "of disguise", the sham would EVENTUALLY be revealed through scientific investigation. ........ On the flip side, I would NOT support a claim that JUST BECAUSE a single particular individual (no matter how smart) was fooled (for no matter how long... a decade of texting?) that the entity on the other side was human, that we MUST THEREFORE CONCLUDE that irrespective of whatever WE KNOW the thing on the other side to BE, it must be the case that it ACTUALLY WAS conscious. That would be a "GET AWAY WITH IT" card if I ever saw one. The mere fact that something APPEARS through text communication to possess human intelligence to a finite person over any finite time, does NOT mean that something MUST be conscious... ALL it means is that it was sophisticated enough to APPEAR so... and appearances can be (and in this case ARE) deceiving. One look under the hood and this sham evaporates. What should we call what we have achieved when this happens? NOT consciousness, or sentience or human intelligence... indeed it is not intelligence at all. Recall the story about the man who was confused about what kind of Elephant a Toy Elephant was... "we have big elephants and smart elephants and toy elephants... they all are KINDS of elephants aren't they?" He is conflating the identity of a REAL animal with variations in size and smarts, with something which is actually only a TOY in the shape of (i.e. which mimics the outer three dimensional form of) an Elephant and not a kind of Elephant at all. Artificial Intelligence is not intelligence any kind, not any more than a Toy Elephant is a any kind of Elephant. But in as much as "Toy Elephant" is perfectly valid to describe a TOY which looks like an Elephant, "Artificial Intelligence" is perfectly valid to describe something artificial which takes on the appearance of intelligence. ............ The rationalists secretly dream of a day when they can FOOL everyone, FOOL them all about there being a human on the other side of a paltry little text machine... and through evasion and anti-concepts fool them into thinking that their blind gargantuan of a toy is sentient. They sigh with ecstasy at the thought of one day announcing to the world of fools: LO, WE HAVE CREATED CONSCIOUSNESS ... LOOK UPON IT AND WONDER! That day, likely before my death, I'll be shaking my head in disappointment and disgust... as any good Objectivist would.
  17. I see what you are getting at, and I tend to agree with you. I do note however, that the time period for “eventual” discovery and the level of critical investigation required to reveal the masquerade would increase in proportion to the sheer size and power of the algorithm and the training it had... (Imagine a super Watson, 1000 programmers, writers and trainers, developing a fictional backstory for a specific fake person with a consistent fake history in loving detail, years “conversing” with people to get its “personality” straight and perhaps decades of Turing tests with random people..). “Eventually” could mean a very long interrogation of highly sophisticated testing (which was the same kind of thing used to train the thing!!!)...likely time durations longer than what was used to test and correct it during training would be required to finally discover the sham. And imitation of human flaws of course would be built in as well... This thing would likely satisfy Turing’s original test quite handily... but eventually... perhaps the sham would reveal itself... using your more strict test. I can’t help but think if the developers know the rules of the tests, the kinds of statistics or queues relied on to detect a sham... they would figure out a way to train the behemoth to game those aspects as well... Anywho... this is all statistics and child’s play compared to making something which undeniably IS conscious.
  18. What about a human which was assembled ... not grown from non human DNA, a human assembled atom by atom?
  19. MS's position logically implies (or relies upon) accepting that "Man" cannot construct any "animal", or that if he were to succeed in doing so (other than by breeding animals...) the resulting entity, even though identical to an animal in every physical, chemical, and biological respect, in reality would lack a kind of "essence" some kind of "animalness", in the thing, which is quite separate from (and in addition to) the identity of what the thing is as a consequence purely of its natural constituent makeup: physical, chemical, biological... i.e. his position implies there is a something more to it... and because of that, a manmade animal by definition would be "artificial" and not an "animal".
  20. Ha. Strong words. Note, I said “long before”... Step back a bit. Let me ask some questions. Is your Turing test a text only no peaking type test with average human beings doing the judging of who or what is on the other side? How long is your Turing test? 10 minutes? 2 hours? 1 day? What raw memory capacity, raw processing power, brute pattern associating, unthinking genetic or neural net algorithms are you limiting your non conscious aspiring impersonator to? How many people, stories, conversations are you limiting your impersonating behemoth to? Is the blind nonthinking system permitted to generate a random personal backstory with events and words to describe thoughts and feelings and experiences reported as associated with those events (similar to what it observed others reporting about events and thoughts and feelings etc). Is it allowed access to hours and hours of television petabytes of literature? Is the internally silent monstrosity trainee in its patterns corrected in what it reports it thinks feels etc through training and “cognitive” therapy? How many years of training and creation would it take for a sufficiently sophisticated zombie to take on what looks like a personality filled with history and enough trickery to consistently and convincingly provide text messages over a short time span, such that a person simply cannot tell who or what is on the other side? This is why I say Long before... long before real consciousness is produced.
  21. I think you are conflating the vast and deep complexity of consciousness (and the subconscious) with its vanishingly small and superficial surface appearances. The words we finally use to communicate what we think, feel, and experience at surface consciousness are nothing compared to what is actually happening when we think, feel, and experience. Making a non conscious thing communicate words to sound like a thinking, feeling, experiencing human, although difficult, is laughably simple compared to making sure a complex system is and does what is necessary for an actual consciousness, which is thinking, feeling, and experiencing. There is more to a book, an iceberg, and a human... than what’s on the surface ... you have to look closely inside and beneath the surface to really understand... If everything about a conscious person thinking, feeling, and experiencing could be fully observed and understood... so that the waves of activity electrical and chemical in sequence and by locality (and globally) could be fully understood, and what about them was important and how, we might know what kind of different complex kind of appearances together are a sure indicator for consciousness in some other complex system... strings of words my friend do not cut it... non thinking AI will fool us long before anything like “Real synthetic I” comes to be. I think an an error of the rationalists in their theory of mind is the conflation of the products of the mind with what mind is and is doing. The mind is doing a lot more than processing information, so much more that comparing a human brain with an algorithm is laughable. The Chinese room is an empty and meaningless toy of a rationalist. PS The zombie argument is a nonstarter with an Objectivist view of existence and identity. In principle there is EVERY reason to believe we will create a synthetic consciousness, once we understand scientifically what it really is... in the FAR future.
  22. Ha! Well we’ll see how it goes. I just happen to be rereading the series now as well... 4rth or 5th time?
  23. Suzanne Ciani is an accomplished new age artist... who is quite a piano composer as well. Interestingly though... "new age" is not so new anymore... Hope she inspires!
×
×
  • Create New...