Search Ideas

Don't you think our particular perspective (which is filtered through the body as sense perception) affects our conceptual system and ways we understand ideas?

Parochially. Culture has more impact.

Why would an AGI use spacial metaphors like understand, arrive, close to understand ideas?

Because it would be a product of our culture and speak English.

But to formulate a general theory for agents, the term ‘people’ is too strong when speaking of what’s relevant for a bacterium…

Yes. This tells you that people aren’t just agents. They are agents in the sense that they exist in some environment they can interact with and move around in. But they’re so much more than that.

It’s a bit like saying humans are mammals. They are, but that’s not their distinguishing characteristic, so we can’t study mammals to learn about people.

I wouldn’t bother with cog sci or any ‘agentic’ notion of people. Focus on Popperian epistemology instead. It’s the only promising route we have.

I think I agree. But to formulate a general theory for agents, the term ‘people’ is too strong when speaking of what’s relevant for a bacterium (which also has problems that shape its actions, what it finds relevant, etc.). But I agree that persons and agents should be differentiated, since people exceed the pre-given problems set by evolution.

…a bacterium … also has problems that shape its actions, what it finds relevant, etc…

A bacterium has ‘problems’ in some sense but it cannot create new knowledge to solve them. It may be more accurate to say that its genes have problems.

I don’t think so, but I don’t know enough of the history. But the framework emerged out of biology trying to make a theory of organisms in general (innate theories like autopoiesis/self-preservation, for example). Then it’s been used specifically in cognitive science to try and integrate the general framework with human cognition. Even though it is dehumanizing, there is some value to viewing at least parts of human cognition in these terms. Whatever creativity is, most of human experience is already pre-given moment to moment, not willed by the person. I don’t think we as people derive our sense of autonomy from this world construction and pre-given coupling (we receive automatic responses/affordances). The only real change I seem to have is in every conscious moment.

[T]he framework emerged out of biology trying to make a theory of organisms in general…

That doesn’t mean static memes couldn’t have co-opted the framework to undermine man and his mind.

The only real change I seem to have is in every conscious moment.

I don’t know what it means to ‘have change’, but note that even unconscious ideas evolve in our minds all the time. So those change as well, if that’s what you mean.

Whatever creativity is, most of human experience is already pre-given moment to moment, not willed by the person.

I think what really happens is this: when we’re young, we guess theories about how to experience the world, and then we correct errors in those theories and practice them to the point they become completely automated. Much of this happens in childhood. As adults, we don’t remember doing it. So then experience seems ‘given’.

the other alters

This part sounds redundant (‘other others’). Also, ‘alter’ can’t be used as a noun, only as a verb (meaning ‘to change’).

I’m not sure I understand how this idea is a criticism of #3510. They sound compatible. A broken price mechanism, if bad enough, causes the division you speak of.

It seems more plausible to me that this …

Unclear what “this” refers to.

The purpose of speaking of an embodied agent is to generalize cognition.

It’s possible that the actual purpose of such language is more sinister than that, having to do with static memes: to continue the age-old mystical tradition of portraying man as a pathetic, helpless being at the mercy of a universe he cannot understand or control.

But I’m purely speculating here and would have to think more about it. So I’m not marking this as a criticism (yet).

Again, to me, that’s how programmers think about their video-game characters, and how researchers think about lab rats in mazes. I would avoid talking about people as ‘agents’ and instead treat them as human beings.

To understand what’s relevant to a person, you need to understand their problem situation.

…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.

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.

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.

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?