Soul is avoiding the self-evidently wrong? That's it, you mean? Am Montag, 9. März 2015 schrieb RP Singh <[email protected]>:
> Gabby, Allan already has a soul dictionary--- view his sig line. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:29 PM, gabbydott <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > > --- > 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] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[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.
