LOL RP - genius! On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:04:59 PM UTC, RP Singh wrote: > > 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 > > ...
-- --- 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.
