On 7/16/2013 2:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:44:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 7/16/2013 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 7/15/2013 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if
connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely
Why not? Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a
property. The difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is
computable. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Or are you
how "k" came to be associated with "broken line" or how the written
"k" was associated with the phonetic sound of "k"?
I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between
phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
being provided programmatically. This suggests that there exists within
experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations which are synthetic
priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A computer can't tell that
is anything inherently curvy about the sound of bouba, but a person can.
Sez you. I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.
You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic fallacy.
And success in stroking your ego that wants humans to be special.
Humans are special to humans. Something that cannot be said of machines.
Consider this. If I were to try to invent the polar opposite of God, what would
God = Anthropomorphic, intentional, conscious, aesthetic, moralizing,
Computation = Mechanemorphic, unintentional, unconscious, anesthetic, amoral,
Wouldn't you say that the symmetry is remarkable?
I don't see anything remarkable about you making up a lot of negative assertions about
computation for which you don't even have an argument, much less a proof. Nor about you
sticking together a bunch of human attributes and tagging the conglomerate "God".
Theologians have been doing that for millenia.
In both cases, there is an originator whose origin is unquestioned.
The difference is that the former is like us, only superlative in every qualitative
Like us? Does God like sex, beer and rock&roll? Did God eliminate smallpox?
while the latter is like inanimate objects, utterly devoid of all qualitative measure.
What is it that God super-signifies and computation de-signifies?
Like you, I see that anthropomorphism is a psychological defense mechanism, but unlike
you I see that the simple reaction against it is not necessarily the antidote (like
throwing liquid nitrogen on a burn is not an improvement).
The Anti-god of Mechanism substitutes the opposite kind of vanity - the arrogance of
false humility. To witness all things as a pure vessel of skeptical clarity, capable of
self-compensating for all flawed perceptions and cognitive bias. Self-importance merely
pivots to self-insignficance as the ego then identifies with the objectifier of the self
rather than the self directly. It's a psychological compensation strategy, one which I
think would bear out neuroscientifically.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.