Hi, Colin, I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your ideas and even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a praise or a threat).
Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of "science" - even "scientist"? (sometimes I consider an 'average' (=multitude of) scientist succumbing to *conventional *ideas called 'scientific' and working within that conventional world-view we get in schools). And thanks for mentioning religion. Best regards John M On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM, ColinHales <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folk, > > Our belief system state in relation to the the truth/falsehood of COMP > is a truly bizarre corner of science. The concept is simple, yet as an > empirical proposition, it has eluded the kind of definitive testing > that, for example, basic physics would accept as conclusive. > > If X is a potential scientific belief, then empirical examination of > the consequences of X adds weight to a body of evidence suggesting > that adopting the belief is of predictive utility. Fine Fine Fine. If > it works, then X is restated in some usable form ... say 'law of > nature X' or X_lon. > > In the formulation of a testable version of belief X, however, is a > process of critical argument that helps us define what X means and > what evidence might be critically dependent on the truth of X. During > the critical argument, you find and weigh up the feasibility of X as a > law of nature and what easily accessible consequences might facilitate > an early decision on X. During this pre 'law of nature' phase, X might > be discarded because it is easy to find sets of conditions which are > inconsistent with X... so we then, sensibly, adopt the position that X > is untenable as a truth of the natural world. And we move on ... all > the while keeping X as a possibility ... albeit improbable. > > In the greater environment of the claim X = 'computationalism', when > you look at the way science is behaving, one can empirically measure > psychologically bizarre belief systems. That is, critical examination > revealing low likelihood fails to become evidence consistent with > COMP's falsehood. The truth of COMP has never been proven in any > logical or empirical way. Yet legions of 'Artificial General > Intelligence' (AGI) workers spend tens and hundreds of $millions on > projects whose outcomes are critically dependent on COMP being > true. .... and the investors are _never_ told about the fundamental > act of faith they are embarked upon. .... a level of faith that would > never be acceptable elsewhere. > > We have multiple instances of people who have elevated the level of > doubt surrounding COMP way beyond the levels normally accepted as > making a proposition highly suspect.... yet here are the legions of > AGI workers ... all plodding along on faith, continuing to believe for > reasons that I cannot fathom. > > I can cite many arguments that, despite attempts to confirm it, find > good reasons supporting COMP's falsehood. Anywhere else, where truths > are entertained despite good reasoning, acting as if COMP was true > makes it a religious proposition, not science. > > Now, I am not a psychologist. But I have read a lot on the history of > science and have lived within it all my adult life. I am trying to > understand what broken logic underpins blind faith in COMP that is > also consistent with a more general belief_malfunction in science. > After several years of analysis I think I have a proposition that is > predictive of this strange state in science: > > There seems to be a profound, institutionalized failure within > scientists that results, for whatever reason, in an inability to > distinguish between the actual natural world and a (mathematical) > model of its behaviour, as apparent to a scientist. > > For reasons I cannot fathom, the idea that these two things can be > different is like a massive blind-spot. If you raise the possibility, > very bizarre objections arise that are indistinguishable from the > objections that a believer has in their religion. > > I will continue to battle this blind spot as best I can. > > Thanks for the Maudlin. I'll add it to the pile of COMP = FALSE > evidence. > By the way, I have a pile of zero height for COMP = TRUE. I do > however, have evidence of believers that number in the millions. > > Weird, huh? > > Cheers > Colin Hales > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.