Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

patrik 7-2321

Regulars
  • Content count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About patrik 7-2321

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Sweden
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    Patrik
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

2371 profile views
  1. I'm responding to you separately. MisterSwig, I would like to basically summarize your comment as: "These concepts can give rise to legal irrationality - such as granting political rights to computer systems, or depriving humans of rights." I absolutely agree with this. The legal system and our laws surrounding technology would most definitely suffer from these bad concepts. CartsBeforeHorses, You are essentially saying that these concepts, as they are normally applied to AI, are valid, and do not cause any problems. It is just that the technology itself may be used to violate rights that is cause for concern. I must admit to having to resist a snarky reference to your name. I think you are commenting quite extensively before having done enough reading on related subjects, notably Objectivism. Also, you disagree with me about whether "perception" and "conscious" is normally applied to AI. Here I would refer you to the Wikipedia article on artificial intelligence so you can see it for yourself. As to Objectivism's application to this, "consciousness" including concepts of consciousness such as "knowledge" and "memory" (and all the rest I mentioned), do only logically apply in their strict meaning to consciousness, and nothing else. Binswanger has an excellent discussion of this in chapter 1 of his book How We Know, where he discusses the issue of applying these terms to computers, saying that it is wrong because it relies on materialist (stolen) concepts of consciousness. You are however touching on a relevant fact here, which is that these words CAN be appropriately used to describe computers and how they work, but only colloquially or not entirely exactly. Quoting Binswanger: I made this topic to discuss more the actual (or future) bad consequences which result from not adhering to this, and applying concepts of consciousness to computers carelessly. I think the legal aspect is a very valid and good point. But are there more problems? I'm particularly interested in problems surrounding the technology itself, such as if many people are trying to build something which cannot really exist, effectively wasting money and good efforts, or if they will eventually seriously misinterpret the technology that results, etc.
  2. Intro: I think it is undisputed that the development of technologies normally classified as AI hold a great value for us. It is at root simply a kind of human-like computer automation, with applications to almost all technologies we use, and even to science as when AI-software has been used to help solve scientific problems. However I sometimes wonder what to make intellectually of the hype surrounding it, what is valid and invalid, and what is good and bad about it. The first thing I am confronted with in this task is the bad terminology used. Hence my question: What are the actual practical problems with labeling certain (AI-)computers as "conscious" and "intelligent", able to "perceive", and able to perform advanced "computations" on "information", and store enormous amounts of "knowledge" in its "memory"? Many Objectivists rightly object to the common usage of these terms when applied to computers, as they imply a certain materialist view of consciousness. Given that we agree on this however, are the actual problems that result strictly philosophical, in that it creates philosophical confusions over time, or is it that it can cause real practical limitations to technological success? (That would seem to run contrary to the fact that this technology is successfully developing so quickly, wouldn't it?) Maybe the problem is only that it permits certain irrationality in the future projections of how AI will impact human life? Or is it all of the above - if so, why? What do you think about this? What's so bad about how people use these words? Should we care about it? (Posted under epistemology because I see this as a good example of the practical application and value of Objectivist epistemology.)
  3. See if you find something at ARI campus that you like, to start you off (awesome site): https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses For reading I'd say start by reading these essays by Rand (lots of choices here but these are good): "Philosophy: who needs it": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1974/03/01/philosophy-who-needs-it/page1 "Faith and force: the destroyers of the modern world": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/faith-and-force-the-destroyers-of-the-modern-world "The Objectivist Ethics": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page1 "Causality versus duty": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1970/01/01/causality-versus-duty "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-conflicts-of-mens-interests I also highly suggest reading these books (after Rand's essays leave you wanting more elaboration and proof): (OPAR was already suggested) How We Know, by Harry Binswanger: http://www.how-we-know.com/ Viable Values, by Tara Smith: http://a.co/cErz41u Moral Rights and Political Freedom, also Tara Smith: http://a.co/8bMPTJQ
  4. So there was a guy in academic epistemology who allegedly turned the whole field upside down in the 1900's, by proving that having Justified True Belief in an idea is insufficient for having knowledge of said idea. Read up if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem https://books.google.se/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=Gp9Umi2VEh8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=Is+Justified+True+Belief+Knowledge%3F&ots=OGD1Xq6SY1&sig=qfXz6_nL9-_008Z6WmjehU7cKFU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Is Justified True Belief Knowledge%3F&f=false How I would sum it up: Gettier provided some examples where an individual S deduces an idea Q which happens to be True, but the reasoning is based on a false premise P, which nonetheless is rationally Justified. Thus the individual does not know that the idea Q is true, and does not have knowledge of Q, but still Believes the idea. Thus it is claimed that S has Justified True Belief in something which is not knowledge, and JTB is an insufficient condition for knowledge. The whole thing bothers me and I'm trying to figure out why. Is this an attempt at proving that knowledge is impossible, or can it actually make rational sense within objectivist epistemology? What to make of it all?
  5. Reason and moral code

    Mike you seem to have the wrong concept of "reality". Ayn Rand once said something like "There is only one reality. Not two, nor four, nor ten".
  6. Objectivism Textbook?

    I think the closest you will come is the book Understanding Objectivism, by Peikoff and Michael Berliner. Here you will be shown how to validate 4 principles of Objectivism, the purpose of which is to teach you the method of validating the whole philosophy for yourself. That's one half of the book, later there is one chapter explaining the hierarchy of Objectivism, followed by a few chapters on epistemology, and then emotions and moral judgement. The whole style of writing and argumentation is also different from OPAR.
  7. I decided to buy this book as an introduction to economics, mainly because John Lewis from ARI recommended it. Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...35291780&sr=1-1 Book webpage: http://objectiveeconomics.net/ Being new to economics I like the book so far, but then I saw this review by the Objective standard: http://www.theobject...up-buechner.asp And then there were some controversy online over this quote from page 1, (the preface): "To the best of my knowledge, this book represents the first attempt to rewrite economics in the light of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism." - Which is claimed by some to be a dishonest statement and an insult to a "George Reisman" (whom I know nothing about) who has previosly written a book on economics with an Objectivist theme. What to make of it? Should this criticism cast doubt on the value of the content of this book? I'd like to hear what you economically literate think about it.
  8. What is, and is not, an Objectivist?

    I don't think this comes off as troll-ish at all. Here's Peikoff's answer: Podcast from June 30th, 2008
  9. The best resources for studying logic

    I'm happy with my logic book, which is Logc: An Introduction, by Lionel Ruby. Prior to reading (half of) it I had no previous expreience with logic as a subject, and this one has been good for me. You can find Harry Binswangers endorsment of this book via google. Basically he recommends that Objectivists buy it but ignore some select parts.
  10. Questioning the beneficiary of value

    I think he meant "the morality which he enacts", rather than "morality as such".
  11. Questioning the beneficiary of value

    Seems like this question comes up because you don't know the validation of the standard of the good. You are in effect asking why your self-interest is what Objectivism says, and not more dependant on other people's well being. In OTI (Objectivism through induction) the validation of the Objectivist concept of self-interest is outlined like this: You choose values. You achieve values. The commong denominator among basic values recognized by common sense as "good" for a person defines self interest. In contrast: altruism is not in your self interest because it contradicts the nature of values (it says you can't value) and it contradicts itself (it says you should pursue values for others). In this context the question of this thread has an almost self-evident answer: "Just look at what values are and what is really good for a person". What I personally find interesting about this is that the formation of the mere concept "self-interest", quickly followed by "egoism" (as the practice of acting for one's self interest), actually holds the proof of the basics of the Objectivist ethics.
  12. Ayn rand study guide

    Among the first hits on google are: http://www.meetup.com/aynrand-200/messages/boards/thread/10277265/0 http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=268 Assuming you've looked at those, what are else are you looking for in a study guide? I own the ARI-printed study guide to OPAR and it's also just a bunch of questions.
  13. Americans: Are you proud to be an American?

    Reading this I immediately thought that in some contexts such pride can be proper. In the sense that you can be proud of upholding and defending the values a group you independently judge to be morally right. ObjectivistAnswers.com agrees with me: http://objectivistan...y-and-ancestors
  14. Reason as man's means of survival

    lol, yeah.
  15. Reason as man's means of survival

    I think this discussion took a rationalistic turn. It did for me at least. So I want to bring this discussion back to the beginning with a more inductive approach. I have solved it. Man must produce, because in the context of comparing to animals attaining values, the unique action taken by men is production. That is therfore the cause of attinment of human values. My question at first was "But how do you deal with a person who steals? How does he fit into this?", and later it also became "How do you deal with a beggar, or a moocher? He who tries to get things without either producing OR stealing?". I didn't realize first that the coontrast with animals actually solves these problems. The theif/looter is properly dealt with by dismissal; by realizing that whatever he does is causally irrelevant - because he acts like an animal! Thus whatever he can get by his own accord, 'long range' if we assume a principled manner of living, is what an animal gets. One can therfore see that he attains his values by some means other than himself or his own actions, by the mercy of womever person he steals from. i.e. he is not engaging in a method of survival. A "moocher" is likewise irrelevant, but his actions are irrelevant not merly because he's unproductive, but because he's also ineffective. A beggar doesn't even give the appearance of successful living. Thus the principle I talked about in the beginning is certainly not arbitrary. The reason why production is "long-range" I have understood is also based on the contrast, and is primarily because we are talking about principled behaviour. Nevermind that typical thieves get into trouble, they don't even on principle enact the cause which would get them values. So why would one assume they could achieve values over the course of years or decades? If they seem to do it, it's not because of their own actions, but because of something else; someone elses production and mercy at their behaviour. So that's it. I'd like to hear your comments.
×