Activity Feed
#4541·Yurii Pytomets, 4 days agoMost ridiculous are takes about so-called Turing test, which, AFAIK, originally was just a bad misogynic joke. Some kind of evolutionary psychology experiments, which people already have set up to study limits of different animals cognitive abilities and abilities to make judgements (e.g. role-playing, like: what ones know about other know about them, and vice versa), or a development of infant children's abilities to interpret concepts like geometry of space, cause and consequence -- would be way better criteria for the AGI system metrics evaluation.
What do you think about such acts as an example of manifestation of the intelligence, abilities to:
- Perceive
- Ask
- Lie
- Joke
- Change
#3922·Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 months agoVeritula implements unanimous consent …
This notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)
There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.
In an "ideal" world with unlimited sources and time.
Real-world cognition model must handle resource (time, computation, available energy, logistic, complexity, influence) bounds as an explicit manageable constraints, presented for the conscious.
#4564·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoIs prejudgment and conformism any good?
I’m not advocating conformism.
Okay, it looks like, counter-argumenting isn't enough to make a more interesting model by eliminating contradictions, let's try to find a common ground constructively, and use them as a fruitful source of improvement possibilities, I hope you do not perceive my, a bit informal way of express counter-arguments, personally, but as a valuable opportunity to test and improve worldview, as so do I, or just because of curiosity, anyway there's no reason to protect any fragile theory, except for a practice and for a cognitive workout purpose. So, back to the point: how your worldview model deals with Kuhn's stance of epistemic's non-monotonic nature? Do you have some formal semantic/logic in mind? Intuitionistic/nonmonotonic/relevance/modal, in particular epistemic/doxastic/temporal logics? There's pretty interesting matching and reachability logics: http://www.matching-logic.org . The https://cis.temple.edu/~pwang/NARS-Intro.html model looks promising. But there's a lot of opportunities to improve/overcome computation complexity issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion), and probably re-imagining, what computers are -- could be the key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer). I agree with the take that only proofs counts which possible to run on the computer. But at the end, any computer or any person -- are just phenomenons at reality, not available for the direct observation and verification, so, after all, at the end -- it's all just vibes around the silent essence.
The certainty that one able to know something in advance.
The root of all kind of discriminations and profanity, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
#4563·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoWhat you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.
Agree, you right, accepting the mistake.
Would you like to tell more what you found important from the Popper's work?
Pretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.
Pretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.
On other hand, it's way more refreshing to accept a few years of existence as an unique gift and value the possibility to enjoy it.
Pretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention for the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention for the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
#4552·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoWhat's bad in being irrational?
Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that an existential disaster -- to not live.
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, 4 days agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
prejudgment
Unclear what this means.
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, 4 days agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
Is prejudgment and conformism any good?
I’m not advocating conformism.
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, 4 days agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
What you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.
#4556·Yurii Pytomets, 4 days agodeath
Everything leads there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xIs0aajN4
Even if that were true, that doesn’t mean we need to endure unhappiness or stasis until then.
#4556·Yurii Pytomets, 4 days agodeath
Everything leads there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xIs0aajN4
Not necessarily, no. It’s a soluble problem.
#4554·Dennis HackethalOP revised 4 days ago“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
Am I? That happens. Would you?
#4553·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoNot better, nor worse, then anyone's else.
This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.
There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.
objective
Oh well
#4553·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoNot better, nor worse, then anyone's else.
This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.
There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.
It’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
#4552·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoWhat's bad in being irrational?
Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.
death
Everything leads there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3xIs0aajN4
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
#4549·Yurii Pytomets revised 4 days agoirrational
What's bad in being irrational? Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense. How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing? And what if you can't? In general: why not considering each judgement, as a true one? Let's talk about that: each person has it's own experience, which you will never live thru, and from their personal perception of this reality, their point absolutely have right to make sense. Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else. Could you prove that that person actually live in the same world you do? How you can be sure that everything you know make sense, and next moment you will not wake up, saying: what a weird dream I saw! How you would measure a truenesslessnessless, how can you expect that successful strategy will not fail next day? Let's touch the ground for a moment: what we ACTUALLY know about us, and the place where we are? If you like me, you know about this world only two things:
1. the World is such so it's existence, essence, the law, a form of being -- inevitable leads to appearing there of you;
2. and you, wonderfully, has an ability -- to perceive an experience, live thru time and flow of entropy, learn, learn something about your own existence, beingnesslessnessless, learn about limit of own ability to learn -- marvelously comprehend something despite all of that, something, or maybe, at least, one -- for sure -- the World is such the place you know about for sure exactly one thing -- whereinit thisnesslessnesslesssness of is allows to exist in it the you one, who able to perceive and comprehend it. And that's it. Everything behind that -- our imagination. But you are here, and I respect it, and welcoming you. So I'm totally open to trust any story of your own perspective on this journey, because: who I am to judge, what is true. And it's okay for me if you are not or notn't.
3. Because things here always falls into two items: the ones which lands in first or second.
4. And the rest ones.
Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else.
This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.
There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.