Cogito, Ergo Sum

Fresco, I understand that "properties" entails an "observer"--they are experiences, not things--but do you mean something special by an ULTIMATE observer? Is that different from (simply an) observer?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Chumly,

Yes it is coherent but wheras I am entertained by some of the more speculative claims of AI, I cannot (yet) philosophically commune with HAL from 2001.

Perhaps peculiar that should bias your views against the probable-possible-speculative right now, given the nature of your predilections.

Or is it just my perception of your predilections Smile

0 Replies

Chumly,

The "bias" against machines as you put it is based on my research experience. For example:The use of "autocorrelation functions" in machine pattern recognition clearly not the way humans do it. Or: the process of "language acquisition" in humans seems to relate to the total context of human development aaand social experience.

If you read up on say Winograd's work you may get the flavour of the objections.

JLN,

My reference to "properties" was prompted by your suggestion that "man the measurer" be included in such properties of "the universe". So unless an "ultimate observer" is evoked we might have to contend with a Russells Paradox situation of sets containing themselves.
If on the other hand I/we wish to deconstruct the word "properties" in terms of "prediction and control" we may need to adopt an "open" or "un-universe" concept where no "ultimates" or "universals" can be valid.

This is all bootstrap stuff of course but it is interesting that the second order cybernetic position
(observation of observation) leaves the possibility of an ultimate observer as a open question.

0 Replies

fresco,

Are you familiar with Karl Popper's "World 3"? Would this be a substitute for "ultimate observer"?

0 Replies

wandeljw

Thanks for that reference. No I'm not familiar with it but a brief Google search makes it look interesting. I'll report back.

0 Replies

wandeljw

Since "world 3" is defined as consisting of of "human artifacts" it does not correspond to "an ultimate observer".

Some (not I) might attach the label "God" to such an "observer" whereas others (perhaps I) might attach the label "cosmic/holistic consciousness".

What is interesting to me about the later Popper is not his "intersection of worlds", but his flirting with the life sciences. You have prompted me to look into this further.

0 Replies

Very interesting, Fresco. As I said eariler, I do not see a transendendtal "observer" behind and apart from all mundane observations, no consciousness channeled through human perceivers. While I do not know, of course, it is my "feeling" that we, as well as flies, worms, and all extraterrestial forms of 'consciousness,' comprise the cosmic mind (perceptions not conceptions) of Brahmin. As you know, I like to think of my every experience AS Atman/Brahmin's experience. This is how I construe the zen notion that zen (enlightened) mind IS nothing other than ordinary mind.
If this does nothing else, it dissolves the "christian" distinction between the sacred and the profane. Everything is "sacred", in its very profanity.

0 Replies

I do not completely understand Popper's "World 3" concept but it seems to supply what is lacking in Descartes' epistemology.

Popper held that knowledge can be distinguished by three worlds. World 1 is the world of material objects (such as tables, trees, planets, stars). Material objects are autonomous (their existence does not depend on our existence). World 2 is the world of mental states (such as pleasure, pain, love, hate, belief). Mental states are subjective and are dependent on the individual mind that experiences them. World 3 contains things which do not belong in World 1 because they are not material and also do not belong in World 2 because they are objective rather than subjective (for example: scientific laws, principles of geometry).

My explanation of Popper may not be accurate. Popper can be very difficult to understand.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Chumly,

The "bias" against machines as you put it is based on my research experience. For example:The use of "autocorrelation functions" in machine pattern recognition clearly not the way humans do it. Or: the process of "language acquisition" in humans seems to relate to the total context of human development aaand social experience.

If you read up on say Winograd's work you may get the flavour of the objections.

IMO the end justifies the means, it matters not how the machine may accomplish this. AKA The Turing Test.

In fact I would suggest that the machine does not necessarily have to abide by any parallels to man's cognitive processes, nor be understood by man, which was part of earlier point.

I was teasing you a bit when I suggested that "perhaps peculiar that should bias your views against the probable-possible-speculative right now, given the nature of your predilections" as it might seem that some of your own interests can have a probable-possible-speculative slant by definition.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Among all the things Descartes doubts there is one that passes unexamined, and that is his own capacity for doubt, wich in turn renders the whole useless, a totem of his immens pride, nothing more.

I am not quite sure why not examining his capacity to doubt would render his entire argument useless. I don't even think it did go unexamined. In the meditations he lists the things that he thinks he can doubt, why he has decided to doubt them and that he feels that one can only engage in this sort of exercise when one is at leisure (he thinks it would be disruptive in everyday situations). Furthermore it seems that doubting something is a pretty good demonstration of ones ability to doubt, but maybe not.

Cyracuz wrote:

It is a fact that in order to doubt you need something solid to scale things against. You need to have an idea of what is true to decide that something might not be. That is why Descartes is so full of crap. He probably didn't even know it himself. In short: It is impossible to doubt everything.

Not nesicarily, it is not perfectly explicit in the text, but Descartes says something along the lines that he decided to undertake his exercise of doubt because he found that opinions that he once held as absolutely true he later found to be less than certain. It is enough to have conflicting evidence or opinions, to cause one to doubt. For example, the sun in the sky looks to be about the size of a dollar coin, yet other evidence such as that given by astronomers informs me that it is at least a little bigger than that. This now causes me a problem, should I continue with my childish first estimation of the sun's size, or should I belive what astronomy teaches, they could both be wrong. It seems that I should at least doubt my first impression that I once took to be certain.
What you say about needing to have an idea of what is true to decide that something might not be, is exactly what Descartes says, hence his search for something that must be true. If he can find this then he will have something solid with which to dispell doubt,or so he thinks. That is he will have something to decide what is true and what is not. So you and Descartes are on the same page. I don't think either of you are full of anything.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

This tiny point has great effect on the turn of the rest of the debate. All thoughts are then seen as the contents of the mind, as product. Following this pattern we could also agree that all smells are part of the nose, produced by it.

No not at all.Thoughts may be contents of the mind and may even be generated by the mind (I think they probably are). But if we were to follow your reasoning we would never have any sensations at all. all vision would be contents of the eye, all sound contents of the ear, and all physical sensations contents of the organ that was touched. If what you say is true then, if I first put water in a jug then pored it in to a glass I would have to say that the water is the contents of the jug and not the glass. Are you seriously suggesting that the organs of sense can not pass information on to the mind/brain? I don't think so. if you do then how do they contain what they have passed on?
also why should we think that smells are produced by the nose, if I smell a rose I don't think that it is my nose that smells good/bad but the rose. but maybe you don't belive in roses. then again maybe you do.

0 Replies

dev56, Descartes' construction of a self-evident "truth" was, I think, to be the basis of further truths that could be DEDUCED from his self-evident truth.
That kind of thinking, Laplace's fantasy of the demon who could turn the world around on the lever of a single certainty, is not very up-to-date.
By the way, I do see the world as BOTH round and flat. It's round from outer space (and according to various calculations) and flat in terms of my everyday practical purposes. Perspective is all.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

...and flat in terms of my everyday practical purposes. Perspective is all.

If it was flat in terms of your everyday practical purposes then the horizon would not drop off, let alone if you tried to fly a plane in a straight line.

0 Replies

Chumly, good qualifications. For a RANGE of practical purposes the flat-assumption WORKS.

0 Replies

Context specific is the key, but with me at least, there is always the niggling question of how true even those qualifications are, even though they are essential, otherwise we could not get anything done.

Does that make sense?

0 Replies

Oh yes, it makes very good sense. As I see it, virtually all, if not all, of our understanding and view of life is illusory, but essential. Without our human-species specific perceptions and many of our fictitious presuppositions we could not survive. Truth is not as profitable as it's made out to be; and (useful but erroneous) fiction is nowhere as unprofitable as it's made out to be.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

dev56, Descartes' construction of a self-evident "truth" was, I think, to be the basis of further truths that could be DEDUCED from his self-evident truth.
That kind of thinking, Laplace's fantasy of the demon who could turn the world around on the lever of a single certainty, is not very up-to-date.
By the way, I do see the world as BOTH round and flat. It's round from outer space (and according to various calculations) and flat in terms of my everyday practical purposes. Perspective is all.

I couldn't agree more. Furthermore I don't think that he did a very good job of showing that all the things he says follow from this "truth" actually do. Just because I have one true statement, I still have to show how/if something else follows.

I still think Descartes is worth reading, if only for historic reasons. We shouldn't forget that when Descartes was writing almost all philosophy was either Aristotelian or Platonic, yes there were others but what was taught or debated was usually one of those tow. Descartes was one of the first to challenge the teaching of his day, and derive answers to metaphysical questions from an epistemological argument. His way of thinking may not be very up-to-date now but it was cutting edge at the time. I think we can forgive him, he has been dead for a long time now.

0 Replies

Of course, he's worth reading, just as Dante is worthwhile reading, even though Hell (the Inferno) is an absurdity.

0 Replies

No, it dosn't exactly mean to exist. I agree with exactly what Cyracuz said.

0 Replies

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know