Search Ideas
1824 ideas match your query.:
By what criterion do you evaluate an explicit idea versus an implicit idea?
Why would an AGI use spacial metaphors like understand, arrive, close to understand ideas? Ideas can be grasped in alot of different ways, which is why the metapahors we use to understand reality matters.
Why would an AGI use spacial metaphors like understand, arrive, close to understand ideas? Ideas can be grasped in alot of different ways, which is why the metapahors we use to understand reality matters.
Do you mean something more than finding unanimous consent between different kinds of ideas about rationality?
There seems to exist arational domains where rationality (as critique of propositional content) is not an sufficient criterion for evaluation, arational domains. In other words, the knowledge of riding a bike is only partially possible to critique by reason. But to get a sense of what you mean. Do you think there always exist a way to get all ideas to jibe that's achieavable through reason?
There seems to exist arational domains where rationality (as critique of propositional content) is not an sufficient criterion for evaluation, arational domains. In other words, the knowledge of riding a bike is only partially possible to critique by reason. But to get a sense of what you mean. Do you think there always exist a way to get all ideas to jibe that's achieavable through reasoning?
Option 2: Go on hiatus from the day job/career, and focus on creative pursuits and research, full-time, for some number of months (duration perhaps depending on job opportunities).
…feelings and other nonrational mental contents…
Feelings aren’t “nonrational” per se. There’s a rational place for feelings. See #3632: I mean no disrespect when I say this but I think you don’t yet understand the notion of rationality I use.
…rational deliberation.
Rationality isn’t the same as deliberation. Deliberation can be part of a rational process but it’s not synonymous with it.
…cannot be reduced to explicit reasons…
Favoring explicit ideas over inexplicit ones is an example of irrationality.
You cannot ride a bike or maintain a relationship by thinking through quantum mechanical or propositional theories to word.
That isn’t what I mean by unity of knowledge. Of course we can’t process our knowledge in its totality at once. That’s necessarily piecemeal. But that doesn’t mean we can’t live a life guided by reason.
If you consider riding a bike an example of irrationality, and reasoning through quantum mechanics an example of rationality, then you haven’t understood Deutsch’s/my stance on rationality. I think you should study it, ask more questions about it, before you’re ready to criticize it.
I don’t think any of this addresses my original criticism that calling people “embodied agent[s]” is dehumanizing. It sounds like we’re studying rats. So what if cog-sci is dehumanizing? That doesn’t make it better.
This is also borrowed from cognitive science.
Yeah, the cog-sci guys don’t understand Popper or epistemology generally. They seem to view minds and brains as input/output machines. But that isn’t how that works.
An example is how brain regions originally used for moving the body through 3D space are repurposed cognitively to "move around" in idea-space. Some anecdotal evidence for this: notice how many movement metaphors structure propositional thinking. We say we're close to the truth, we under-stand, we grasp a concept, we arrive at a conclusion.
That has nothing to do with brain regions. An AGI running on a laptop would use the same phrases.
Several typos here. Please use more care when you write ideas.
Okay. When your revision addresses a criticism, remember to uncheck each version of the criticism underneath the revision form. Try revising the idea again and uncheck the criticisms you’ve addressed. Otherwise, your ideas look more problematic than they are.
Fixed it. I meant to write perspectival knowledge, whcih is a term used in cognitive science.
Empirically, roles with "a closer relationship with physics, math and design" overwhelmingly seem to be reserved for PhD-holders. So mediocrity may not be to blame for the as-yet inability to land engaging roles. However, both could be factors.
The failure to have found roles which have a closer relationship with physics, math and design may stem from an underlying mediocrity as an optical engineer; this itself could stem from the underlying (or widespread) disinterest in it within your mind.
The cost of living for several months is not large relative to the amount of money in savings. The opportunity cost and financial strategy points are valid, but pale in comparison to the moral cost of not pursuing what one is passionate about and good at -- especially when there is arguably some potential for value, given the state of the world regarding AI/AGI. Being an employee in an uninteresting field for years or decades is a catastrophic loss, and all too common.
The resume gap can be absolved by simply listing "independent research" for the period in question. Forming an LLC would also help to formalize the venture (in addition to having other uses).
perspectively knowledge
I’m not sure that’s what you meant to write. Adverbs don’t go in front of nouns. Maybe something about perception?
It sounds like you have a different conception of knowledge and rationality from Popper’s/Deutsch’s.
There’s a unity of knowledge. Knowledge isn’t fragmented the way you suggest. Rationality means finding common preferences among ideas, ie making different types of ideas jibe. Why should that not be possible for the types of knowledge you mention?
Calling people “embodied agent[s]” like they’re barely superior to video-game characters is dehumanizing and weird.
The quote uses bullet points where the original source uses none.