Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
A general approach to this that frequently works is to examine the definitions that you are using for ambiguity. Then to look for operational tests. If the only clear meanings lack operational tests, then it's probably worthless to waste computing resources on the problem until those problems have been cleared up. If the level of ambiguity is too high (judgment call) then the first order of business is to ensure that you are talking about the same thing. If you can't do that, then it's probably a waste of time to compute intensively about it. Note that this works, because different people draw their boundaries in different places, so different people spend time on different questions. It results in an approximately reasonable allocation of effort, which changes as knowledge accumulates. If everyone drew the bounds in the same place, then it would be a lamentably narrow area being explored intensively, with lots of double coverage. (There's already lots of double coverage. Patents for the telephone, I believe it was, were filed by two people within the same week. Or look at the history of the airplane. But there's a lot LESS double coverage than if everyone drew the boundary in the same place.) As for What is consciousness?... DEFINE YOUR TERMS. If you define how you recognize consciousness, then I can have a chance of answering your question, otherwise you can reject any answer I give with But that's not what I meant! Ditto for time. Or I could slip levels and tell you that it's a word with four letters (etc.). Also, many people are working intensively on the nature of time. They know in detail what they mean (not that they all necessarily mean the same thing). To say that they are wasting their time because questions about the nature of time are silly is, itself, silly. Your question about the nature of time may be silly, but that's because you don't have a good definition with operational tests. That says nothing about what the exact same words may mean when someone else says them. (E.g. [off the top of my head], time is a locally monotonically increasing measure of state changes within the local environment is a plausible definition of time. It has some redeeming features. It, however, doesn't admit of a test of why it exists. That would need to be posed within the context of a larger theory which implied operational tests.) There are linguistic tricks. E.g., when It's raining, who or what is raining. But generally they are relatively trivial...unless you accept language as being an accurate model of the universe. Or consider Who is the master who makes the grass green? That's not a meaningless question in the proper context. It's an elementary problem for the student. (don't peek) (do you know the answer?) It's intended to cause the student to realize that things do not have inherent properties that are caused by sensations interpreted by the human brain. But other reasonable answers might be the gardener, who waters and fertilizes it or perhaps a particular molecule that resonates in such a manner that the primary light that re-radiates from grass is in that part of the spectrum that we have labeled green. And I'm certain that there are other valid answers. (I have a non-standard answer to The sound of one hand clapping, as I can, indeed, clap with one hand...fingers against the palm. I think it takes large hands.) If one writes off as senseless questions that don't make sense to one, wellwhat is the square root of -1? The very name imaginary tells you how unreasonable most mathematicians thought that question. But it turned out to be rather valuable. And it worked because someone made a series of operational tests and showed that it would work. Up until then the very definition of square root prohibited using negative numbers. So they agreed to change the definition. I don't think that you can rule out any question as nonsensical provided that there are operational tests and unambiguous definitions. And if there aren't, then you can make some. It may not answer the question that you couldn't define...but if you can't sensibly ask the question, then it isn't much of a question (no matter HOW important it feels). Tudor Boloni wrote: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, and the post showed some real time wasters from various fields that i found valuable to be aware of It implies it is pointless to ask what the essence of time is, but then proceeds to give an explanation of time that is not pointless, and may shed light on its meaning, which is perhaps as much of an essence as time has.. i think the post tries to show that the error is that treating time like an object of reality with an essence is nonsensical and a waste of time;) it seems wonderful to have an AGI
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
John, an impressive effort and wonderful direction, an analytical psychology of the Good in humans is sorely lacking and the focus on human sickness has had a monopoly for way too long and with untold negative consequences for society at large. assuming these meanings are correct (or will be fine tuned to be so at some point), cannot your coding include classes that would prohibit improper uses of such terms, kind of a system of rejecting attempts to mix value judgments and labels? On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:29 AM, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike The abstract nouns Honor. Justice. Truth can all be shown to be objectively based in science of Behaviorism http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html as outlined in technically linked schematics http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html and even granted US patent 6587846 www.ethicalvalues.com Just offering up the latest advances... Wittgenstein would be proud ^_^ Cordially John LaMuth www.charactervalues.org * GUILT * Previously, you (as reinforcer) have leniently acted in a reinforcing fashion towards me: overriding my (as procurer) submissive treatment of you. But now, I (as personal authority) will *guiltily* act in a submissive fashion towards you: overruling your lenient treatment of me. * BLAME * Previously, I (as personal authority) have guiltily acted in a submissive fashion towards you: overriding your (as reinforcer) lenient treatment of me. But now, you (as my personal fol-lower) will *blamefully* act in a lenient fashion towards me: overruling my (as PA) guilty treatment of you. * HONOR * Previously, you (as my personal follower) have blamefully acted in a lenient fashion towards me: overriding my (as PA) guilty treatment of you. But now, I (as group authority) will *honorably* act in a guilty fashion towards you: overruling your (as PF) blameful treatment of me. * JUSTICE * Previously, I (as group authority) have honorably acted in a guilty fashion towards you: overriding your (as PF) blameful treatment of me. But now, you (as group representative) will *justly*-blame me: overruling my (as GA) honorable sense of guilt. * LIBERTY * Previously, you (as group representative) have justly-blamed me: overriding my (as GA) honorable sense of guilt. * * But now, I (as spiritual authority) will honorably act in a *libertarian *fashion towards you: overruling your just-blaming of me. * HOPE * Previously, I (as spiritual authority) have honorably acted in a libertarian fashion towards you: overriding your (as GR) just-blaming of me. But now, you (as my spiritual disciple) will blamefully-*hope* for justice: overruling my (as SA) libertarian sense of honor. * FREE WILL * Previously, you (as my spiritual disciple) have blamefully-hoped for justice: overriding my (as SA) libertarian sense of honor. But now, I (as humanitarian authority) will honorably act in a *freely willed* fashion towards you: overruling your (as SD) blameful-hope for justice. * TRUTH * Previously, I (as humanitarian authority) have honorably acted in a freely-willed fashion towards you: overriding your (as SD) blameful hope for justice. But now, you (as representative member of humanity) will justly-hope for the *truth*: overruling my (as HA) libertarian sense of free will. * EQUALITY * Previously, you (as representative member of humanity) have justly-hoped for the truth: overriding my (as HA) libertarian sense of free will. But now, I (as transcendental authority) will freely-willed act in an* ** egalitarian* fashion towards you: overruling your (as RH) just-hope for the truth. * BLISS * Previously, I (as transcendental authority) have freely-willed acted in an egalitarian fashion towards you: overriding your (as RH) just-hope for the truth. But now, you (as my transcendental follower) will *blissfully* hope for the truth: overruling my (as TA) egalitarian treatment of you. . - Original Message - *From:* Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com *Sent:* Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:39 AM *Subject:* Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense Tudor: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, Er, it's a rather big job. I think you're talking about all abstract nouns. Time. Space. Honour. Justice. Truth. Realism Beauty. Science. Art. You're talking IOW about a dimension of language almost as fundamental as adverbs. It's worth pursuing the illusions created by the verbal abstractions of language and the ways we use them - but it's a huge task. -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ |
[agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members t --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Tudor Boloni wrote: we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members Read it. Along with pretty much everything else he wrote (that is in print, anyhow). Calling things a category error is a bit of a cop out. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Tudor, If you were referring to the following post as the source of an appropriate filter for what should and should not be considered an appropriate question I think you picked the wrong source. oh yes, there are indeed stupid questions... e.g. what is essence of time? what is the nature of consciousness? where does the now go? we would do such an incredibly positive service to the next generation if we could convince them early on of the stupidity of nonsensical sentence structuring... for anyone still not finished with wittgenstein's final works, the answer to all the above is the japanese word 'mu' (question is a false construction based on ignorance), or explicitly: time is a made up name one gives to cycles of the sun, decaying particles, etc. there is no essence, just a naming convention; consciousness is a made up name for a subjective set of behaviors given a set of stimuli, different for each questioner; the now can't go anywhere just like a river can't stop flowing since it would cease to be called a river... http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/2008/11/oh-yes-there-are-indeed-stupid.html # posted by observer 2.0 @ 04:23 http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/2008/11/oh-yes-there-are-indeed-stupid.html 0 comments It implies it is pointless to ask what the essence of time is, but then proceeds to give an explanation of time that is not pointless, and may shed light on its meaning, which is perhaps as much of an essence as time has.. Similarly, it implies it is pointless to ask what is the nature of consciousness, and then gives an explanation, that while not necessarily correct, or even close to complete, has some meaning about the nature of what we call consciousness. It is not clear that either of the above two questions fall within the above quote's definition of mu. Even questions that more clearly fall within the meaning of mu, such as what is the sound of one hand clapping, can have some value for providing an example of mu and warning us of the types of trick language can play on us. Ed Porter -Original Message- From: Tudor Boloni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:36 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members t _ agi | https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | https://www.listbox.com/member/?; 0 Modify Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
wrong category is trivial indeed, but quickly removing computing resources from impossible processes can be a great benefit to any system, and an incredible benefit if the system learns to spot deeply nonsensical problems in advance of dedicating almost any resources to it... what if we could design a system that by its very structuring couldnt even generate these wittgensteinian deep errors... also, as far it being a cop out, i disagree it clears the mind to the deepest levels allowing a springwell of clarity that shows other answers in record time and accuracy, an example: minsky points to the same stupidity of asking the question of what is consciousness, preferring to just look for stimuli/behavior rules that are required to survive and act, and letting others worry about how many of those rules make up their version of the word conscious... On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Tudor Boloni wrote: we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members Read it. Along with pretty much everything else he wrote (that is in print, anyhow). Calling things a category error is a bit of a cop out. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, and the post showed some real time wasters from various fields that i found valuable to be aware of It implies it is pointless to ask what the essence of time is, but then proceeds to give an explanation of time that is not pointless, and may shed light on its meaning, which is perhaps as much of an essence as time has.. i think the post tries to show that the error is that treating time like an object of reality with an essence is nonsensical and a waste of time;) it seems wonderful to have an AGI system answer such a question with time is a human label of arbitrary length based on conventions among human subgroups what more needs to be said of time than that it is a label, allowing the word essence creates a very hard and confusing and pointless internal 'debate' in an AGI, essence means a further compression of data or synopsis of concept or a deeper fundamental level of truth not its meaning... so i would be happier hearing time has no essence, time is defined as: Similarly, it implies it is pointless to ask what is the nature of consciousness, and then gives an explanation, that while not necessarily correct, or even close to complete, has some meaning about the nature of what we call consciousness. same as above... having researchers looking around for something that doesnt exist is a time waster. having word handles to easily move abstract concepts about is a productivity enhancer IF and ONLY if communicants share word definitions. since consciousness the word needs to be defined as how many simple behaviors are we going to require before we agree to call something conscious, this defining stage is critical before any use of the word, so if an AGI is asked the question 'what is consciousness' if would have to respond that its defined differently by all askers, so it has no nature, its just a variable that needs to be defined before its use in a conversation i guess the key here is that there is an important division between legitimate language and nonsense, and i never see us try to protect our systems from being burdened by the nonsense --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Tudor Boloni wrote: wrong category is trivial indeed, but quickly removing computing resources from impossible processes can be a great benefit to any system, and an incredible benefit if the system learns to spot deeply nonsensical problems in advance of dedicating almost any resources to it... what if we could design a system that by its very structuring couldnt even generate these wittgensteinian deep errors... also, as far it being a cop out, i disagree it clears the mind to the deepest levels allowing a springwell of clarity that shows other answers in record time and accuracy, an example: minsky points to the same stupidity of asking the question of what is consciousness, preferring to just look for stimuli/behavior rules that are required to survive and act, and letting others worry about how many of those rules make up their version of the word conscious... The problem with this is, that what seemed to Wittgenstein and Minsky (when they had their Philosophical Behaviorist hats on) as just meaningless words that referred to nothing (e.g. consciousness) may well turn out to have deeper and more interesting structure than they thought. For example, they could not, in principle, answer any questions about the practical effects of the various manipulations that I proposed in my recent paper. And yet, it turns out that I can make predictions about how the subjective experience of people would be affected by these manipulations: pretty good work for something that is labelled by W M as a non-concept! My point of course, is that they were wrong about some of the specific things that would be a waste of time for an AGI to think about. They were right in principle to say that some questions are framed badly (as in, But now show me where the University is!), but it would be dangerous to assume that we can sort the wheat from the chaff and get it right every time, no? Richard Loosemore On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tudor Boloni wrote: we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members Read it. Along with pretty much everything else he wrote (that is in print, anyhow). Calling things a category error is a bit of a cop out. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Richard, please give me a link to the paper or at least the example related to manipulation of subjective experience in others, i am indeed curious to see how their approach would fare... thanks for the effort in advance tudor For example, they could not, in principle, answer any questions about the practical effects of the various manipulations that I proposed in my recent paper. And yet, it turns out that I can make predictions about how the subjective experience of people would be affected by these manipulations: pretty good work for something that is labelled by W M as a non-concept! Richard On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tudor Boloni wrote: we invariably generate and then fruitlessly explore (our field is even more exposed to this than most others) until we come up against the limits of our own language, and defeated and fatigued realize we never thought the questions through. i nominate this guy: http://hyperlogic.blogspot.com/ at a minimum wittgenstein's Brown Book should be required reading for all AGI list members Read it. Along with pretty much everything else he wrote (that is in print, anyhow). Calling things a category error is a bit of a cop out. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modify https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Tudor Boloni wrote: Richard, please give me a link to the paper or at least the example related to manipulation of subjective experience in others, i am indeed curious to see how their approach would fare... thanks for the effort in advance Sure thing: http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Tudor: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, Er, it's a rather big job. I think you're talking about all abstract nouns. Time. Space. Honour. Justice. Truth. Realism Beauty. Science. Art. You're talking IOW about a dimension of language almost as fundamental as adverbs. It's worth pursuing the illusions created by the verbal abstractions of language and the ways we use them - but it's a huge task. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
your list is a start to a list of only potentially problematic questions or constructs, since using these words and concepts is actually going to be required in any AGI system... a flag list is a start, but a set of rules to eliminate areas of language construction we do not need to ever worry about in designing AGI would be the artful goal On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Tudor: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, Er, it's a rather big job. I think you're talking about all abstract nouns. Time. Space. Honour. Justice. Truth. Realism Beauty. Science. Art. You're talking IOW about a dimension of language almost as fundamental as adverbs. It's worth pursuing the illusions created by the verbal abstractions of language and the ways we use them - but it's a huge task. -- *agi* | Archives https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ | Modifyhttps://www.listbox.com/member/?;Your Subscription http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense
Mike The abstract nouns Honor. Justice. Truth can all be shown to be objectively based in science of Behaviorism http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html as outlined in technically linked schematics http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html and even granted US patent 6587846 www.ethicalvalues.com Just offering up the latest advances... Wittgenstein would be proud ^_^ Cordially John LaMuth www.charactervalues.org GUILT Previously, you (as reinforcer) have leniently acted in a reinforcing fashion towards me: overriding my (as procurer) submissive treatment of you. But now, I (as personal authority) will guiltily act in a submissive fashion towards you: overruling your lenient treatment of me. BLAME Previously, I (as personal authority) have guiltily acted in a submissive fashion towards you: overriding your (as reinforcer) lenient treatment of me. But now, you (as my personal fol-lower) will blamefully act in a lenient fashion towards me: overruling my (as PA) guilty treatment of you. HONOR Previously, you (as my personal follower) have blamefully acted in a lenient fashion towards me: overriding my (as PA) guilty treatment of you. But now, I (as group authority) will honorably act in a guilty fashion towards you: overruling your (as PF) blameful treatment of me. JUSTICE Previously, I (as group authority) have honorably acted in a guilty fashion towards you: overriding your (as PF) blameful treatment of me. But now, you (as group representative) will justly-blame me: overruling my (as GA) honorable sense of guilt. LIBERTY Previously, you (as group representative) have justly-blamed me: overriding my (as GA) honorable sense of guilt. But now, I (as spiritual authority) will honorably act in a libertarian fashion towards you: overruling your just-blaming of me. HOPE Previously, I (as spiritual authority) have honorably acted in a libertarian fashion towards you: overriding your (as GR) just-blaming of me. But now, you (as my spiritual disciple) will blamefully-hope for justice: overruling my (as SA) libertarian sense of honor. FREE WILL Previously, you (as my spiritual disciple) have blamefully-hoped for justice: overriding my (as SA) libertarian sense of honor. But now, I (as humanitarian authority) will honorably act in a freely willed fashion towards you: overruling your (as SD) blameful-hope for justice. TRUTH Previously, I (as humanitarian authority) have honorably acted in a freely-willed fashion towards you: overriding your (as SD) blameful hope for justice. But now, you (as representative member of humanity) will justly-hope for the truth: overruling my (as HA) libertarian sense of free will. EQUALITY Previously, you (as representative member of humanity) have justly-hoped for the truth: overriding my (as HA) libertarian sense of free will. But now, I (as transcendental authority) will freely-willed act in an egalitarian fashion towards you: overruling your (as RH) just-hope for the truth. BLISS Previously, I (as transcendental authority) have freely-willed acted in an egalitarian fashion towards you: overriding your (as RH) just-hope for the truth. But now, you (as my transcendental follower) will blissfully hope for the truth: overruling my (as TA) egalitarian treatment of you. . - Original Message - From: Mike Tintner To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [agi] who is going to build the wittgenstein-ian AI filter to spot all the intellectual nonsense Tudor: I agree that there are many better questions to elucidate the tricks/pitfalls of language. but lets list the biggest time wasters first, Er, it's a rather big job. I think you're talking about all abstract nouns. Time. Space. Honour. Justice. Truth. Realism Beauty. Science. Art. You're talking IOW about a dimension of language almost as fundamental as adverbs. It's worth pursuing the illusions created by the verbal abstractions of language and the ways we use them - but it's a huge task. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
