On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:48:29 AM UTC-4, Samiya wrote: > > Thanks for sharing! >
Sure, you're very welcome. > > I found the 'built for a purpose' experiment with children and adults > quite interesting. > Yes! I forgot about that part actually, but yes very interesting how the "why?" and evolves from a teleological default. The expectation of teleology is intrinsic to the development of consciousness. > I suppose there are things we know, things we reason and things we desire, > and sometimes they all come together, and sometimes they conflict, such > that we try to convince ourselves of something that deep down, on the > fundamental level, is differently 'hard-wired' within us. > > I thought the truth-machine experiment was flawed. If its a truth-machine, > then it should know the truth (have the truth data already) rather than > evolving, through user-interaction, in its knowledge of the truth. The flaw > here is similar to the fallacy applied to ideas of God where some people, > though they admit that there is a God, imagine that God is evolving and > learning through creation (experimentation?). We may not be able to > comprehend God, but that does not mean that we try to limit God or cast God > in the 'image of man'. > The Godel truth-machine doesn't necessarily have all truth data, it just has perfect knowledge of whether any given statement is true or false. It's a thought experiment, so it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to isolate the question of whether logic is absolutely consistent. The fact that some statements which refer to themselves are not consistent shows either that logic is inconsistent, or that reference is beyond logic. I think that clearly it is the latter, if not both. Reference is an aesthetic experience which requires sensory participation. What I proposed is that the thought experiment can be used to illustrate that more, by showing that the elements of the statements, by themselves, are neither true nor false. Logical systems and arithmetic truths cannot be fundamental because their presence in the first place is not true or false. Craig > Samiya > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Through the Wormhole: Is God an Alien Concept? >> <http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hexc7_is-god-an-alien-concept_shortfilms?start=2> >> >> >> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hexc7_is-god-an-alien-concept_shortfilms?start=2 >> >> If you haven’t seen this episode, I highly recommend it. >> >> Early on there is an experiment which shows the effect that reading words >> associated with spirituality is correlated with being able to exercise >> substantially more willpower. This result is used to help justify the >> existence of religion as a part of natural selection, since the benefit of >> increased willpower to perform unpleasant tasks would offset the cost of >> otherwise difficult to explain rituals and ceremonies. What was not offered >> is an explanation of the nature of what it is in particular about concept >> of spirituality that causes the effect of amplifying the effectiveness of >> personal resolve. >> >> In my view, the God concept is a metaphor for consciousness, so that by >> referring to the divine, we are reminding ourselves of the primacy of our >> own sensory capacities and motive powers. Spiritual concepts assert >> teleology over material appearances, and aligns the self rightfully with >> teleology rather than a passive object. Part of the reason why religion has >> been so effective has been its role as cheerleader for the military, and if >> there is some truth to my hypothesis, it would make a lot of sense to mix >> the two so that you have a weaponized religion/teleologized military. Of >> course, it is a double edged sword (almost literally), as the physical arms >> race is mirrored by the immaterial arms race, and fanatical fundamentalism >> is born. >> >> The last segment (starting 36:35) was on Gödel and incompleteness. In >> the example they dramatized, there is an exchange with a universal truth >> machine which repeats only true statements. 2+2=4 gets repeated but 2+2=5 >> does not. The machine famously breaks down when it comes to the prospect of >> repeating “I cannot say 2+2=5 twice, I cannot say 2+2=5”, since it is both >> true that it cannot say that 2+2=5, but false that it cannot say it two >> times in a row. >> >> What occurs to me here is to ask whether the machine can just say “2”, or >> “plus”, or “equals”? If so, then just by slowing down the machine, it can >> be made to say two, plus, two, equals, five. By breaking down logic to >> these elements, it can be seen that sensory inputs are beneath the level of >> logic. Whether we say that the machine will repeat isolated elements or it >> won’t, it should be clear that the presence or absence of information is >> not generated by logic, and that in fact, logical inference is derived from >> the relationships among elements which are given. Indeed, just as we can >> utter statements that the logical truth machine cannot, we have no trouble >> uttering isolated elements. We can appreciate and reproduce sounds and >> symbols which have no logical meaning, but rather refer to the aesthetic >> nature of the experience of uttering them. How are we to deny that >> aesthetic properties must be more fundamental than logical properties, and >> that representation (information) cannot exist in the absence of >> presentation (sensory experience)? >> >> There are several other good segments in here, including one with Ben >> Goertzel. I agree with Ben’s views on the universality of spiritual >> qualities within intelligence, however I do not consider AI to be authentic >> intelligence derived from sensory-aesthetic phenomena, but rather simulated >> intelligence, derived from what I imagine to be a kind of grand concourse >> of interstitial protocols. Intelligence can be thought of as >> commercialization or publicizing of subjectivity. An AI, derived from >> generic rules rather than irrationally appreciated aesthetic experiences >> (like, love, pain, pleasure), can deliver a commercial for subjectivity, >> but I think that it will in fact lack any ‘residential’ authenticity. The >> lights are on, and it looks like someone might be home…but they aren’t. >> >> -- >> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
