2012/10/9 Evgenii Rudnyi <[email protected]>: > On 08.10.2012 20:45 Alberto G. Corona said the following: > >> Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian >> epistemology, which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. > > > You may want to read Three Worlds by Karl Popper. Then you see where to > Popperian epistemology can evolve. > > “To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe. There is > the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that > of the living organisms. World 2, the world of conscious experience, > emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms. World 3, > the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary > product from world 2.” > ..and the perception of world1 is not a "objective image of the "phisical realiy"", but a result of particular adaptive needs, interests and purposes. This perception of world1 is not part of world 1, but an evolutionary product, that is part of world 2. This is very important.
That means that any perception has a purpose from the beginning, and "making an objective idea of phisical reality" is not neither can be a valid purpose, because it is ultimateley, purposeless and, additionally it has infinite "objective" versions of it (do we want to perceive radiation? neutrinos? atoms? only macroscopical thigs?. Therefore, the general intelligence, that is part of World 3, has to work with the impulses, perceptions and purposes evolved in world 2 . Therefore we the humans are limited by that (and in any other artificial case, as i would show). But this does not means that the human mind, have the take this limit as a absolute limit for their reasoning. He ask itself about the nature of these limitations and reach different reactions to this: one answer is to adopt a particular belief that match with these limitations, negate them (nihilism). or try to transcend them (gnosticism : my limitations are false impositions and I have to search for my true self ) or try to know them (realism) That is the difference between a tool, like an ordinary Mars Rover that send data to the eart from a person or for that matter, an AGI devide sent to mars with the memories of life in earth erased and with an impulse to inform the earth by radiowaves: While the ordinary rover will be incapable to improve its own program in a qualitative way, the man or the AGI will first think about how to improve his task (because it would be a pleasure for him and his main purpose). To do so he will have to ask itself about the motives of the people that sent him. To do so he will ask himself about the nature of his work to try to know the intentions of the senders, So he will study the nature of the phisical medium to better know the purposes of the senders (while actively working in the task, because it is a pleasure form him) . But, because he will also have impulses for self preservation and curiosity in order to inprove self preservation. To predict the future he will go up in the chain of causations, he will enter into philosophical questions at some level and adopt a certain wordview among the three above mentioned ones, beyond the strict limitations of his task. Otherwise he would not be AGI or human. General inteligence by definition can not be limited if there is enough time and resources. So the true test of AGI would be a philosophical questioning about existence, purpose, perception. That includes moral questions that can be asked due to the freedom of alternatives between different purposes that the AGI has: For example, whether if the rover would weight less or more the self preservation versus task realization ( Do I go to this dangerous crater that has this interesting ice looking rocks or I spend the time pointing my panels to the sun? ) Note that a response to the questions: 1 "What is the ultimate meaning of your activity" -"It`s my pleasure to search interesting things and to send the info to the earth". 2 " What is is "interesting for you?". -"Interesting is what i find interesting by my own program, which I cannot neither I want to know". 3- "Don´t you realize that if you adopt this attitude then you can not improve your task that way?" - "Dont waste my time. Bye" Would reveal an worldview (the first) that is a hint of general intelligence, despite the fact that apparently he refuses to answer philosophical questions. > “The feedback effect between world 3 and world 2 is of particular > importance. Our minds are the creators of world 3; but world 3 in its turn > not only informs our minds, but largely creates them. The very idea of a > self depends on world 3 theories, especially upon a theory of time which > underlies the identity of the self, the self of yesterday, of today, and of > tomorrow. The learning of a language, which is a world 3 object, is itself > partly a creative act and partly a feedback effect; and the full > consciousness of self is anchored in our human language.” > > Evgenii > -- > > http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/06/three-worlds.html > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
