Gabby, Allan already has a soul dictionary--- view his sig line. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:29 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have defined Allan (Al, if you prefer the short form) as the intelligent > agent who wants to see his idea of Soul sort of fleshed out. Why not? > Building a project glossary is not so unusual. Allan seems to be most > interested so might as well let him start a test ballon in which he tries > to identify his idea of soul in what we say and put his findings in an > extra thread or extra glossary software, if he wishes. We could give him > feedback and make suggestions for alterations and in the end have a product > called "Allan's Soul Dictionary (ASD)" and would all be happy ever after... > > Am Montag, 9. März 2015 schrieb archytas : > >> Of course, one cannot get far in AI without defining what an intelligent >> agent is. Maybe AI is soul, seeking to free itself from our biology or >> Gabby's stuck time loop? >> >> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:29:39 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>> >>> So could you. Even my machines have a 'this didn't work before' routine >>> and 'try something else'. Would a reboot help? >>> >>> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:10:18 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>> >>>> But you could help to build a repository of meaningful content for the >>>> soul, at least in our context here. This is what I suggested before. If you >>>> want to, I can go back and find that posting for you. >>>> >>>> Am Montag, 9. März 2015 schrieb : >>>> >>>> Primate chatter makes more sense. >>>> >>>> I have little to no doubt that you can create a program or programs to >>>> mimic human behavior. Hopefully eliminating poor behavior in getting hung >>>> up in endless loops . .. which can be of great advantage.. at the same time >>>> it can get trapped in loops from which it can not escape making the same >>>> error endlessly.. another human trait. >>>> >>>> Just because you can mimic human thinking and logic flawlessly. The >>>> real problem is is logic can not create a soul.. probably because so little >>>> is known or understood.. to me that is the major problem with Artificial >>>> intelligence. >>>> >>>> >>>> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين >>>> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: archytas <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 1:58 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung >>>> >>>> One of the missing themes in social epistemology is that people might >>>> have already worked out the 'great theory of coerced oppression' >>>> themselves. The theory then just tells everyone what they knew from >>>> experience. Huge numbers of people think the stuff naive in the face of >>>> obvious power. We then kow-tow like dogs in a pack or chimps under the >>>> alpha (a 'political appointee'). Teaching is a kind of suppressing fire in >>>> this view. A lot of biological metaphors make sense here. Insect >>>> consensus, the ability of parasites in control, leadership bringing sex and >>>> huge biological change - and I defy anyone to listen to primate chatter >>>> without recognizing Parliament. >>>> >>>> Windows 7 comes in home, professional and ultimate. Any disk version >>>> you buy actually has all the versions on it and a small bit of program >>>> gives you access to all versions (but you still need the MS product key to >>>> activate). Humans may be held in something like this condition, switched >>>> off from Molly's higher planes. One sees this all over the plant and >>>> animal world, plus cascade genetics and the managing HOX genes (snakes >>>> could have legs etc) - some developmental switch makes most of the >>>> difference, not the actual genes. Bees can actually reprogram themselves >>>> between nurse and forager. >>>> >>>> I do sometimes wonder if we could bring human change by identifying the >>>> micro-organism that rules us, like drunken ants staggering to their doom at >>>> lunar noon under fungal influence! Habermas ain't the antidote, though he >>>> does tell us someone else has thought some of it through as we might have >>>> guessed. I think machines can help much more than we admit. Though we >>>> also separate the machines from matters like love and caring for a deaf >>>> child. >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 11:18:21 AM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>> >>>> Cheers, Francis, to all the mad stuff you are doing! >>>> >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 10:34:26 PM UTC-4, frantheman wrote: >>>> >>>> Don't worry, Neil, I haven't sold out and swallowed the academic bait >>>> with hook, line and sinker! There is, as you often and rightly point out, >>>> an immense amount of waffle in the whole academic business, frequently >>>> clothing platitudes, or very small ideas in pages of obfusticating >>>> gobbledegook, all of it referenced with hundreds of footnotes to show >>>> everyone how clever and diligent you are. >>>> >>>> But, as I mentioned earlier, I have - after a break of nearly 30 years >>>> - once more formally engaged with the academic world, and am just finishing >>>> the first semester of a Masters programme in cultural studies. However I'm >>>> fortunate that I have no great ambitions to make a career out of it, nor am >>>> I compelled to do so. I still work at an honest job to make a living, >>>> though I have been able to cut down my working hours to the extent that I >>>> now get by with doing eight night-shifts per month, looking after four >>>> chronically seriously ill children. - - >>>> >>>> - - (short pause in writing this to detach a seven year hellion from >>>> her respirator and monitor so that she can go to the bathroom, followed by >>>> a discussion in sign-language (she's deaf), making it clear to her that she >>>> must go back to sleep as it's only two thirty in the morning and she has to >>>> go to school tomorrow. She may have many health issues, but for all that >>>> she's a typical seven year old, with an infinite capacity for negotiation >>>> about stuff she doesn't feel like doing) - - >>>> >>>> - - Furthermore, I am immensely fortunate to live in a country where >>>> third level education - at state universities (and the *Fernuniversität >>>> Hagen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FernUniversit%C3%A4t_Hagen> *is a >>>> fully recognised state university on the Open University model) is nearly >>>> completely free - it costs me € 300 per semester ... read it and weep, >>>> American readers! Now that my daughters are independently earning their own >>>> living,I've no one to look after except myself, which makes it all >>>> financially possible without having to go into horrific debt or live on >>>> bread and water in an unheated garret. >>>> >>>> Cultural Studies is an unusual beast. It was invented around thirty to >>>> forty years ago by Literature Departments to stave off their widely >>>> perceived danger of drifting into terminal irrelevance and extinction. In >>>> Hagen it's organised jointly by the (German) Literature Department and the >>>> History Department (which identifies strongly with a sociological >>>> approach <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_School> to history >>>> and regards Max Weber as being only marginally inferior to God). As someone >>>> embarking on this intellectual journey, I do feel a certain need to try to >>>> identify my own particular standpoint with respect to all the diverse >>>> intellectual/academic directions, currents, schools and outlooks which one >>>> encounters in this area. All the more so as the specific subject of the >>>> Masters programme glories in the title "European Modernity." Sort of, >>>> "everything you wanted to know about the past two hundred and fifty years >>>> but were afraid to ask ... or answer." >>>> >>>> The more I read in this whole area, the more I find myself being >>>> stimulated and excited by the various *turns *in postmodernist >>>> thinking. Lyotard's scepticism regarding metanarratives (which you >>>> mentioned) echoes with me, as does a lot of stuff that Frederic Jameson >>>> writes - his analyses of particular works of modern architecture are great. >>>> Of course there's an awful lot of pretentious academic wanking around too, >>>> but at the moment I'm still at the stage of enjoying having my mind and >>>> concepts extended. If only there weren't such annoying things such as exams >>>> and reaserch papers (I'm currently trying to finish one on the >>>> protoindustrial development of the textile industry in the Duchy of >>>> Berg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergisches_Land> from 1700 to 1820 >>>> ... yawn!), but that's the price I have to pay for getting formally >>>> involved in the academic business once more. >>>> >>>> Of course I'm not going to save the world with any of this, but there >>>> is a great feeling of liberation in studying just for fun. And I can now >>>> once more officially regard myself as a student, which means I don't have >>>> to get up early in the morning if I don't feel like it. And maybe do all >>>> kinds of other mad stuff ... >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 8. März 2015 13:07:42 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>> >>>> I suppose the collected works of Habermas and Luhmann would be about >>>> the size of a big wardrobe. I am not a believer, though find Habermas very >>>> tempting, "Descartes" (thought of in a long line that might include Molly >>>> and Orn) is about the pursuit of truth and this continues in social >>>> epistemology, dropping the solus ipse to a considerable extent - we >>>> certainly no longer hew to rigid introspectionism - though we can ask 'did >>>> we ever'? Molly and Orn don't work as people like that, though stand up >>>> well as examples of people trying for something I have deep respect for >>>> (there are some key epistemic issues in this - resolvable I think in terms >>>> of people who want peace and justice). >>>> >>>> "Whereas Descartes thought that truth should be pursued only by the >>>> proper conduct of "reason," specifically, the doxastic agent's own reason, >>>> social epistemology acknowledges what everyone except a radical skeptic >>>> will admit, namely, that quests for truth are commonly influenced, for >>>> better or for worse, by institutional arrangements that massively affect >>>> what doxastic agents hear (or fail to hear) from others. To maximize >>>> prospects for successful pursuits of truth, this variable cannot sensibly >>>> be neglected." >>>> >>>> This paragraph could do with some Chris-style 'stripping for >>>> translation'! Doxastic agents! It is surely 'bleedin' obvious' we are >>>> people of cultures. At risk of Gabby's wrath, I will mention again these >>>> cultures are Bacon's Idols. Feminism is a good example of a social >>>> epistemology in bringing out the male domination of control fraud >>>> knowledge. >>>> >>>> The message, eventually, after reading several wardrobes,, is that we >>>> are largely being being had through culturally transmitted control frauds. >>>> The questions really concern how we could do something better and how we >>>> can tell people they are being conned (a very difficult matter). Debates >>>> on epistemology that people can't understand, framed in academic ways of >>>> making livings, involving complex literacy and numeracy, hardly form >>>> anything easily translatable - the ways of making academic livings also >>>> control frauds. >>>> >>>> If one looks at a small area like forensic science, where on might >>>> assume well understood science would produce easily translatable facts, we >>>> get a lot of human corruption. The proper function of forensic science is >>>> to extract the truth. This function, unfortunately, is not well served by >>>> current practice. Saks et al. (2001: 28) write: "As it is practised today, >>>> forensic science does not extract the truth reliably. Forensic science >>>> expert evidence that is erroneous (that is, honest mistakes) and fraudulent >>>> (deliberate misrepresentation) has been found to be one of the major >>>> causes, and perhaps the leading cause, of erroneous convictions of innocent >>>> persons." One rogue scientist engaged in rampant falsification for 15 >>>> years, and another faked more than 100 autopsies on unexamined bodies and >>>> falsified dozens of toxicology and blood reports (Kelly and Wearne 1998; >>>> Koppl 2006, Other Internet Resources). Shocking cases are found in more >>>> than one country. >>>> >>>> Kelly, J. F. and Wearne, P. (1998), Tainting Evidence: Inside the >>>> Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, New York: The Free Press. >>>> Koppl, Roger (2005), "Epistemic Systems," Episteme: A Journal of Social >>>> Epistemology, 2 (2): 91–106. >>>> >>>> We are affected by this in very practical ways. My contention is most >>>> of the problems could be brought to obvious light. We are 'allowed' the >>>> epistemological, but not practical action. Francis' hammock is in the >>>> right place, the metaphor replete with the quiescence involved in framing >>>> oneself as an academic (which Francis obviously isn't in the best sense I >>>> can mean that). I once 'fitted up' a paedophile for other crimes - he had >>>> committed them, so technically it wasn't a fit up. The institutional and >>>> legal barriers were too big to fight and still are. It got him off the >>>> streets for a couple of years, though he continued after release. Ugly Ray >>>> Terret has just been retrospectively convicted and given 25 years. One >>>> might think we could address the issues of social epistemology through >>>> practical examples everyone can grasp. Indeed, Kopl tries. Yet the >>>> ideologies of soaked-up knowledge, various COWDUNGS (conventional wisdoms >>>> of dominant groups) make this an act of heretic courage. There are still >>>> people who can't take the idea that, say, if born in the Muslim world they >>>> would be Muslim. >>>> >>>> In the West we are dominated by neo-liberalism and economic blather. >>>> Even if we vote to change this, as the Greeks just have, what can any >>>> politicians do confronted with the 'smoke filled rooms' they enter off the >>>> corridors of power with warnings that anything other than austerity will >>>> lead to disaster? Economics is largely a lie through which dominance is >>>> exerted and the West (now largely under the US military umbrella) 'stays >>>> ahead' - and who sensibly would not want this shield against even worse >>>> domination from elsewhere? >>>> >>>> There have been people talking about positive money, democratic foreign >>>> policy and radical democracy for more than 100 years. Yet in politics we >>>> get to vote for main parties making jawbs-groaf promises within >>>> neo-liberalism, corrupt banking and utterly false notions on how growth is >>>> achieved and what it should be. The real dialogue is made invisible, and >>>> Francis' hammock, if right in immanent academic consideration, is part of >>>> bearing witness before the crash. I'm not suggesting Francis is doing this >>>> >>>> We need to think global and beyond. Yet look what globalisation has >>>> done so far and what we fear leaders will do whatever they spout. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 2:35:19 AM UTC, frantheman wrote: >>>> >>>> Sheldon Cooper of *The Big Bang Theory *justifies his claim always to >>>> be right thus: "If I were wrong I would know it!" >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 8. März 2015 02:25:40 UTC+1 schrieb frantheman: >>>> >>>> What a wonderful overview, Neil! I envy your capacity to cook down >>>> the huge amount of controversy involving epistemology, sociology, ideology, >>>> modernism and post-modernism into a few comprehensible paragraphs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Personally, I find myself suspended between the kind of modernism >>>> proposed by Habermas and the various post-modernist critiques of it. Not >>>> always an easy (or consistent) position, I'm trying to figure out a way to >>>> construct a hammock on the basis of this suspension which allows me to >>>> comfortably swing from one to the other as I please. And didn't someone >>>> once comment that consistency is the privilege of small minds? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If critical theory has established anything, it's that the old >>>> metaphysical arguments about ontology and "das Ding in sich" are just a >>>> waste of time. We can't ultimately get out of our skins; our knowledge is >>>> *human *knowledge, worked out and communicated in *human *terms, and >>>> as such it will always have a cultural and societal framework. Such >>>> frameworks are dynamic, interacting with each other, growing, changing ... >>>> organic really - which is no wonder, given that humans are organic beings. >>>> "Pure" rationality is a chimera, because as humans we can only think in >>>> human categories. Should we ever encounter aliens, I suspect that the >>>> intercommunication would be difficult, frustrating and endlessly >>>> fascinating, because they might very well structure their thinking >>>> according to other categories (that's why they can travel faster than >>>> light, by the way, their way of doing logic doesn't see the problem of >>>> *e=mc2 >>>> – *they just take the interdimensional back-way through their granny’s >>>> garden. That is if we don’t kill them first, or they run away from us in >>>> horror to call the inter-stellar exterminators to come and deal with us >>>> because we’re not fit to be let loose on civilized galactic society). And, >>>> of course, one of the major – perhaps *the *major characteristic of >>>> the inevitable human context of our knowledge is language. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Habermas is wonderfully attractive in his appeal for reasonable and >>>> reasoned discourse on societal issues - this conviction that it is possible >>>> through dialogue and mutual understanding to reach conclusions which will >>>> actually make things better. In the end, of course, he's a good >>>> old-fashioned bourgeois liberal who believes in "progress". The problem >>>> with him is that he is convinced that his position (and the post-WWII >>>> western German society in which he lived in, and which he has worked on >>>> forming all his adult life) is the *superior *position (as I said >>>> before - typical German philosopher). I become ever more suspicious of >>>> people who *know *that they're right - and that everyone else is >>>> consequently less right - or to put it more bluntly, *wrong.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is where the post-modernists gleefully point their fingers at him. >>>> Denying others absolute truth, he implicitly and pragmatically claims it >>>> for himself. (It’s also why he can’t stand them!) On the other hand, the >>>> various post-modernist *turns *run the risk (and are repeatedly >>>> accused) of falling into complete *laissez-faire *multi-culti, >>>> anything-goes relativism. If our truth-values – to which our moral values >>>> belong – are societally, historically and culturally conditioned, what >>>> right do I have to claim my moral values are better than yours? Weren’t the >>>> niggers better off as slaves on the plantation, being looked after by a >>>> kind and paternalistic massa, than being condemned to living a constant >>>> life of danger, deprivation, drugs and depression in some run-down project >>>> in contemporary decrepit Detroit? Or let’s not even bother with spurious >>>> justifications, let’s go all the way to social Darwinism; the strong do as >>>> they will, and the weak suffer as they must. As it was in the beginning, is >>>> now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, at the moment, this is where I find myself intellectually at the >>>> moment, gently swinging in my hammock between these two positions. >>>> Descartes may have found his answer to doubt in his own affirmation of his >>>> self-cognitive rationality (though Dan Dennett >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained> believes he can >>>> define this out of existence), but it’s still a big step to the conviction >>>> of the ultimate *rightness *of the particular positions one espouses. >>>> Maybe the recognition of the conditionality of our own premises, and the >>>> openness to the possibility of their correctibility – while not >>>> automatically offering them up as being completely conjectural and relative >>>> - is the real prerequisite for meaningful discourse. Or as Oliver Cromwell >>>> (normally not someone over-inclined to questioning his own righteousness) >>>> once asked the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, “I beseech you, in the >>>> bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken!” Of course, that >>>> still leaves the question open; how can you even begin to discuss with >>>> people who *know *they’re right? >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Samstag, 7. März 2015 12:54:02 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>> >>>> Good to see you too Don. I'm not much into the nuances of translation >>>> stuff, partly because I lack Gabby's skills and Francis' patience. There >>>> are many versions of Chris' 'make the language simple enough for >>>> translation' angle - one here is called the 'Crystal Method' and is taught >>>> to our bullshit bureaucrats, so they can confuse us with smaller words. We >>>> scientists got the 'Fog Index', screwed as soon as you use an equation or >>>> start talking about attribution tests and extreme value analysis. >>>> >>>> I see another kind of 'translation'. Habermas is actually quite easy >>>> compared with other Germans like Gunter Ludwig on how scientific theories >>>> come about. Russell and Whitehead wrote three volumes on why one and one >>>> make two and, eventually, were wrong. Things get relative when we try to >>>> ground stuff in origin (I was told to remove the word 'stuff' from my >>>> thesis as it was too common a word). I translate this complex social stuff >>>> into a long line of philosophical effort. >>>> >>>> There is no 'start' or 'origin'. If I mention the pre-Socratics and >>>> the pyrrhonists, I know they were much influenced from Persia and India. >>>> They at least knew argument can nearly always be made in several different >>>> ways that are very difficult to choose between. One gets a line from this >>>> stuff to Descartes and that 'I am thinking therefore I am' stuff - I'm more >>>> of an I woke up and am still here bloke. Socrates and Bacon more or less >>>> said public opinion ain't worth shit and Descartes continued this in >>>> radical doubt, supposedly grounded on not being able to deny one's own >>>> presence. Actually, there being thoughts does not imply a thinker, and if >>>> you doubt everything you are, in fact, doubting nothing and have made doubt >>>> into something that can't ground itself. Wittgenstein eventually says we >>>> have been arguing over the same terrain for centuries, not resolved >>>> anything and thus must be bewitched by the language we are using. So we >>>> should know more about language. >>>> >>>> This turns into what we now call social epistemology, away from the >>>> individual introspective sole thinker to something more social. Marx is a >>>> classic example and the discipline of sociology. One can split this in >>>> many ways, though the standard differences are as follows: >>>> " The classical approach could be realized in at least two forms. One >>>> would emphasize the traditional epistemic goal of acquiring true beliefs. >>>> It would study social practices in terms of their impact on the >>>> truth-values of agents' beliefs. A second version of the classical approach >>>> would focus on the epistemic goal of having justified or rational beliefs. >>>> Applied to the social realm, it might concentrate, for example, on when a >>>> cognitive agent is justified or warranted in accepting the statements and >>>> opinions of others. Proponents of the anti-classical approach have little >>>> or no use for concepts like truth and justification. In addressing the >>>> social dimensions of >>>> >>>> ... >>> >>> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
