Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-01-2008, 09:20 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-01-2008, 09:52 AM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default IQ Tests point estimates

Lanier argues that a three-digit IQ has specious precision, but he doesn't understand statistics. If you are estimating a number with a large standard error, the point estimate is still 'scientific' and 'valid'; those who assume there is no standard error are making a mistake, but the point estimate is still good. To group data by, say, the closest standard deviation would impart bias. What does he propose, that those with IQs from 116-125 be called '120'? That would mean not only do you have standard error from the test, but a standard error from the grouping that would be about as large, compounding the standard error.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2008, 03:27 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: IQ Tests point estimates

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
Lanier argues that a three-digit IQ has specious precision, but he doesn't understand statistics. If you are estimating a number with a large standard error, the point estimate is still 'scientific' and 'valid'; those who assume there is no standard error are making a mistake, but the point estimate is still good. To group data by, say, the closest standard deviation would impart bias. What does he propose, that those with IQs from 116-125 be called '120'? That would mean not only do you have standard error from the test, but a standard error from the grouping that would be about as large, compounding the standard error.
I think part of his point is that there's reason to assume that the values generated by the test have any particular mapping to anything useful, since it's unclear what exactly they purport to measure. I think you're making an argument based on the idea that the values are just imprecisely measured. That's not really what I heard Lanier trying to say.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2008, 11:42 AM
hamandcheese hamandcheese is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 48
Send a message via Skype™ to hamandcheese
Default Jaron's Circle Speak

Jaron irritates me. He talks himself in circles and it seems whenever Eliezer makes a good point contrary to something Jaron has said he either distracts or laughs it off. Ironically, I think Jaron's failings in this discussion come from ideology. He seems transfixed on this idea that Eliezers position is comparable to religion by making these generalized and ultimately inadequate parallels. When his arguments fail he, quite religiously, falls back onto some vague, self-righteous notion that's hard to dispute. When these fail it doesn't phase him to say "well, that's just what I believe." Doesn't he see that he is the truer ideologue?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2008, 03:48 PM
sealrock sealrock is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 18
Default Re: Jaron's Circle Speak

That's exactly right!

I would like like to add that when Lanier is cornered he seems to revert to nervously mentioning his great accomplishments and then impulsively attacks the ideas of the Singularity (saying that they should just stop their research) without any explanation as to why other than because *he* says so and then ever addresses the question at hand.

I had high hopes for Lanier but Eliezer won me over.

Last edited by sealrock; 11-01-2008 at 07:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-03-2008, 11:34 PM
nadc nadc is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
Default Re: Jaron's Circle Speak

Quote:
Originally Posted by hamandcheese View Post
Jaron irritates me. He talks himself in circles and it seems whenever Eliezer makes a good point contrary to something Jaron has said he either distracts or laughs it off. Ironically, I think Jaron's failings in this discussion come from ideology. He seems transfixed on this idea that Eliezers position is comparable to religion by making these generalized and ultimately inadequate parallels. When his arguments fail he, quite religiously, falls back onto some vague, self-righteous notion that's hard to dispute. When these fail it doesn't phase him to say "well, that's just what I believe." Doesn't he see that he is the truer ideologue?
My thoughts exactly.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2008, 12:01 PM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

jaron lanier!!!! coool! BHtv is starting to look up these days!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2008, 12:51 PM
ed fielding ed fielding is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Cool!
Whatta treat.

I like Eliezer. I like his grasp of his data. I can get past the smug confidence of his ‘superior intelligence’, because he’s still humane, if verging on superciliousness. He knows lots of stuff even if he’s relishing his cocksureness. I’m not as smart as him, but he makes some things accessible.

Jaron, on the other hand, is one of my heroes, since maybe 1978 ot so, as he must have been to anyone who relished The Whole Earth Catalog. He commands respect from such as me simply for his collection of musical instruments. When you factor in his leadership in areas of thought in science, he kinda invalidates the usual containers and fences.
I’ve always been a big fan of invalidating fences. Down with enclosure! Spread the wealth!

This d-log embodies, more explicitly than might normally be possible, a puer/senex contest, the young and the old contending for leadership, for who has gotten further down the road, who understands better the challenges and fruitful opportunities. Young buck, as ’twere, full of his confident mastery versus the old fool who has spent a whole lot of time on that side-track, the highway, and a lot of other back roads and has a better map of the potholes and ruts, as well as personal familiarity with many of the most interesting characters who map out the road..
Emphatically not the traditional puer/senex pairing, because it isn’t the elder who wants to crush the youth, but who leads the way forward with laughter, and (as he says) intellectual modesty. The youth wants to demonstrate his confidence that the elder is too mired in the past, passé patterns of thinking, and silly anachronism.

Ain’t no contest (I’m happy to say as an elder), but it is a treat; a keeper.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-01-2008, 01:23 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed fielding View Post
... a puer/senex contest, the young and the old contending for leadership, for who has gotten further down the road, who understands better the challenges and fruitful opportunities. Young buck, as ’twere, full of his confident mastery versus the old fool who has spent a whole lot of time on that side-track, the highway, and a lot of other back roads and has a better map of the potholes and ruts...
Ed, you are really waxing poetic! This diavlog's going straight to my iPod.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-01-2008, 03:16 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

That was a nicely matched pairing. These guys ought to have the opportunity to publicly debate on a regular basis (hint.) Even if I didn't understand a word they were saying (and I'm making no claim about how much I understood) the back and forth was incredibly engaging. Each of them concentrates his ferocious skepticism on different aspects of what they seem only sort of agree is something like the same broad project. By the time they've moved off a specific topic, your belief in your ability to understand what to believe about it begins to seem seem questionable. That, to me, is the highest praise possible.

I hope we see more of both guys, together and separately.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-01-2008, 03:21 PM
cmonsour cmonsour is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
Default Artificial Consciousness: Done

This idea that you could have a physically identical copy of a human being but except with the "consciousness" subtracted away is so ridiculous that it's hard to see how anyone takes it seriously. I think people only adopt it because they think there's some contradiction between the fact of subjective experience and the idea that the world is purely physical. But there's no contradiction. That feeling in your head is just what it feels like to be the specific physical system that you are.

Sometimes to hear these debates you would think that every time a human was born a great tear opened up in the fabric of the universe and the Ancient of Days was seen to bestow a soul on the new member of the race. People, we have the ability to create human consciousness in the laboratory. You take a human egg and sperm, which by every conceivable test appear to be purely physical entities and certainly do not appear to have any relationship to consciousness; you fertilise the one with the other; you allow the fused product to grow, which by every single bit of evidence involves nothing more than its individual subatomic components following the basic laws of physics that apply to living and non-living systems alike; and a few years later, you have something we all agree is conscious.

For practical reasons we can't skip straight to synthesizing the final product, but why on earth (or wherever) would you think that its property of consciousness depended on the precise process by which it came to exist?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-09-2008, 02:46 PM
zoedog88 zoedog88 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Artificial Consciousness: Done

Last time I checked, the scientific world could not even define consciousness ...much less how it happens...if it was seperate from the brain, etc. etc....Consciousness-spirit-soul go hand in hand IMHO and that is a part of life which one day science will integrate hopefully...Quantum will lead us there....Hmmmm, is my brain just an organ for consciousness to reside??? When my physical body dies will my consciousness (which is energy) die also?? Can you kill energy or does it just change form??
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-01-2008, 04:06 PM
Foobs Foobs is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

I very much enjoyed the diavlog, and not just because I kept waiting for Lanier to launch into the scat part from "Freak on a Leash"...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-01-2008, 06:00 PM
BeachFrontView BeachFrontView is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 94
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Great diavlog. Fascinating to listen to or an outsider. When they can predict the date computers are gonna take over the world come back on Bloggingheads and give us a heads up.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-01-2008, 06:04 PM
ektimo ektimo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

I used to argue for the possibility and importance of a mysterious thing also, though I wouldn’t have described it that way.

I changed my mind after reading this: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/got-crisis.html

(Yes, I'm a big fan of Eliezer’s writings.)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-01-2008, 10:52 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Hi all,

This is just a brief visit to thank BhTV for presenting a perspective on consciousness. Eliezer and Jaron are a great pair. They are both very knowledgeable, one with a more pragmatic approach and the other indulging in more meta ‘abstraction’ to include motivation, dogma, religious goals, and ‘spirituality’. Needless to say I had only superficial understanding of the AI related concepts discussed.

I do agree with Jaron about the importance of not only tolerating ‘uncertainty’ (metaphysical ambiguity), but of valuing its preservation in order to avoid a pointless direct pursuit of the unreachable. Of course, Eliezer will ask “why is it unreachable?” From a pragmatic perspective one has to believe that it may be reachable to advance knowledge, but one has to know that it will be unreachable or it will become meaningless. That’s the nature of the unknowable.

These abstract concepts can be very easily misinterpreted as religious. I do object to using the term ‘spiritual’ because the connection with magical, and religious belief is too loaded with negative connotations for the secular mind. I have made that mistake myself, for lack of better terminology. But if there’s anything I’m learning is to eradicate the ready made easy answers that are so tempting when one needs an explanation for complex and unknown situations, particularly when they defy any logical, rational framework that one has become accustomed to.

The idea of ‘zombies’ seems quite strange to me. If they were indeed identical to conscious beings, how could they be different? If there is an attribute to them that is different (ie: lacking consciousness), there has to be some difference even if we are unable to detect it. Or are we talking about something like a mirror image, or a virtual ‘twin’?

Jaron makes the point that some of the AI/ singularity advocates’ pursuits, such as immortality, are similar to those of religion. In essence, Jaron is pointing at our human need to deal with the prospect of death or suffering by evoking the hope of some magical savior. I’m not sure that this is a very meaningful concept, except in the sense of the kind of action each of those calls for. Are we going to pray, play the drum or develop scientifically based technologies? Or perhaps all of the above?

This is the kind of talk that leaves more questions than answers. Neat, don’t you think?

Last edited by Ocean; 11-01-2008 at 11:57 PM.. Reason: typo deletion
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2008, 12:40 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
This is just a brief visit
Ojalá que te quedes un rato.

Wonder Hussein Ment
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-02-2008, 04:39 AM
Timon Timon is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

MORE LIKE THIS
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-02-2008, 12:23 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

This was an enjoyable romp. I especially enjoyed Jaron Lanier and his mockery of some of more bizarre claims of AI fanatics, e.g. their insistance on denying the reality of consciousness. But since I have never understood why such intelligent people should be intent on denying what is the condition for denying (or affirming) anything (if you believe, as I do, that only self-conscious minds are capable of thinking ABOUT anything), I must confess I was predisposed in his favor. Reading books by Dennett or Pinker or Dawkins I always reach a point of exasperation where I want to throw their Darwinian rubbish into the nearest rubbish bin...but usually decide to keep them anyway: perhaps one day enlightenment will dawn and I shall become a zombie.

Last edited by Francoamerican; 11-02-2008 at 12:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-02-2008, 12:28 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
This was an enjoyable romp. I especially enjoyed Jaron Lanier and his mockery of some of more bizarre claims of AI fanatics, e.g. their insistance on denying the reality of consciousness. But since I have never understood why such intelligent people should be intent on denying what is the condition of denying (or affirming) anything (if you believe, as I do, that only self-conscious minds are capable of thinking ABOUT anything), I must confess I was predisposed in his favor. Reading Dennett or Pinker or Dawkins I always reach a point of exasperation where I want to throw their Darwinian rubbish into the nearest rubbish bin...but usually decide to keep them anyway: perhaps one day enlightenment will dawn and I shall become a zombie.
Darwinian rubbish? What do you propose as an alternative to that "rubbish?"
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-02-2008, 12:36 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Darwinian rubbish? What do you propose as an alternative to that "rubbish?"

Nothing. Darwinism is valid as far as it goes and I have nothing but respect for evolutionary biologists. Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists: they are propagandists for metaphysical positions which are neither confirmed nor discomfirmed by evolution.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-02-2008, 12:43 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
Nothing. Darwinism is valid as far as it goes and I have nothing but respect for evolutionary biologists. Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists: they are propagandists for metaphysical positions which are neither confirmed nor discomfirmed by evolution.
Dennett is a philosopher, Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists. All of them are respected and influential both in and out of their respective fields. By "propagandists" I take it you mean they have stated positions with which you have disagreements.

Added: to be clear, Dennett is a philosopher of science.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 11-02-2008 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-02-2008, 12:56 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Dennett is a philosopher, Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists. All of them are respected and influential both in and out of their respective fields. By "propagandists" I take it you mean they have stated positions with which you have disagreements.

Added: to be clear, Dennett is a philosopher of science.

Thank you for your useless correction. In fact I am quite aware of their status in academia and, unlike you I seem actually to have read them too. Whatever their speciality, they take philosophical or metaphysical positions, which are NOT based on science.

If you cannot understand that simple distinction, don't bother to respond because I will not bother to reply!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-02-2008, 01:03 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
Thank you for your useless correction. In fact I am quite aware of their status in academia and, unlike you I seem actually to have read them too. Whatever their speciality, they take philosophical or metaphysical positions, which are NOT based on science.

If you cannot understand that simple distinction, don't bother to respond because I will not bother to reply!
Logic, dude. Your conclusions should follow from your premises. Your assertions should be consistent with one another. To wit:

Franco:
Quote:
Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists
Jeff:
Quote:
Dennett is a philosopher [of science], Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists.
Franco: (paraphrasing) Stop bringing up irrelevancies! Besides I've read them and you haven't! And I won't talk to you unless... (I don't quite understand the unless part here. I'm inferring that I won't. Oh well.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-02-2008, 01:32 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Logic, dude. Your conclusions should follow from your premises. Your assertions should be consistent with one another. To wit:

Franco: (paraphrasing) Stop bringing up irrelevancies! Besides I've read them and you haven't! And I won't talk to you unless... (I don't quite understand the unless part here. I'm inferring that I won't. Oh well.)
What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-02-2008, 01:45 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.
It's taken you this many posts just to name, not even describe, your problem with what these folks have written. And yet each of your responses has been an attack on my understanding. An inference which, while it might well be true, certainly isn't evident from my fairly pointed posts. It's an interesting approach, I guess: no matter what your opponent says, just keep implying they don't know what they're talking about. Substance free, but often effective.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-02-2008, 02:23 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
It's taken you this many posts just to name, not even describe, your problem with what these folks have written. And yet each of your responses has been an attack on my understanding. An inference which, while it might well be true, certainly isn't evident from my fairly pointed posts. It's an interesting approach, I guess: no matter what your opponent says, just keep implying they don't know what they're talking about. Substance free, but often effective.

No actually it's taken you at least this many posts to understand, and frankly I doubt if you have understood much of anything.

Basta!

By the way there are several errors in your English.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-02-2008, 02:25 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
By the way there are several errors in your English.
There always are. Thanks for noticing,
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-02-2008, 03:58 PM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.
Dawkins doesn't say anything about the nature of consciousness. Pinker and Dennett say different things. While Pinker basically agrees with Lanier that it's a mystery, Dennett, god blessed him, explained the consciousness.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-09-2008, 09:01 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeK View Post
Dawkins doesn't say anything about the nature of consciousness. Pinker and Dennett say different things. While Pinker basically agrees with Lanier that it's a mystery, Dennett, god blessed him, explained the consciousness.
Not true: Dawkins substitutes the philosophically extremely meager theory of "memes" for consciousness. The fact that he has so little to say about consciousness is a serious defect in any scientific theory.

True: Pinker and Dennett differ in significant ways, but they are both scientific materialists in their attempts to "explain" consciousness (language in the case of Pinker) by something that lies below consciousness.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-09-2008, 02:53 PM
zoedog88 zoedog88 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Hmmmmm....metaphysical?? Quantum and metaphysical are getting to be good buddies....What was yesterday metaphysical, today can be scientifically verified....SO don't scoff at metaphysics...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-10-2008, 01:16 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoedog88 View Post
Hmmmmm....metaphysical?? Quantum and metaphysical are getting to be good buddies....What was yesterday metaphysical, today can be scientifically verified....SO don't scoff at metaphysics...

I wasn't scoffing. What I was criticizing was surrepticious metaphysics, i.e. the tendency of philosophers and scientists to use science or pseudo-science to deny the reality of consciousness. The denial of consciousness is is a metaphysical position. It is called, or used to be called, "materialism." More recent philosophers seem to prefer the term "naturalism," no doubt because it sounds more pleasant---like organic food or nudism. I see no reason to deny what I experience every time I open my mouth to say that something is true or false.

I suppose that makes me a Kantian. I really don't understand how some science, whether it be evolutionary biology or AI, can explain (away) the reality of consciousness. The condition of possibility of knowledge (to speak with Kant), and above all the possibility of scientific knowledge, is the existence of the human mind. The very ability to demonstrate that something is true or false (for example, the theory of evolution), real or unreal (for example, numbers or illusions) etc. depends on the existence of mind. This is not a metaphysical claim, simply an acknowledgement of an indisputable fact.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-02-2008, 02:39 PM
jeremyr jeremyr is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

We are, of course, conscious critters: pain hurts, etc. But why are you so confident that consciousness is where thinking happens?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-09-2008, 02:55 PM
zoedog88 zoedog88 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

No-one knows as of to date...Consciousness is a wide open field that only the brave explore...lol
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-02-2008, 01:40 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

oh, of course, i mean, obviously:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/155...3:57&out=04:26
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-02-2008, 02:32 PM
jeremyr jeremyr is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

Computer scientists talking about philosophy is about as interesting and informative as philosophers talking about computer science.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-02-2008, 06:26 PM
ejim ejim is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence

This was disappointing. Lanier could not defend ANYTHING he said! He constantly changed the topic or argued from ignorance. We don't know so we can't know. Or im a really smart guy who has worked in this field for a long time and i have not found this idea useful. Ok valid but really limited statement. Also true that people can treat AI as a religion and it can make them nutty. But just because people believe wrong things about something does not make the subject itself wrong. example: quantum mechanics.

It is true that i have found AI and singularity people off putting but Laniers inability to defend his position has moved me to be more sympathetic to the efforts of strong AI people.

I think the one thing i would like to see defended is the time frame argument for AI. You do act different whether you think AI is imminent or that it is not. It could be ten years or it could be a few thousand. It does not seem decidable.

PS. Lanier started this BHTV clip trying to argue for epistemological soundness when considering AI statements and here rejects completely epistemology. Why did he not just defend himself? He seemed to say yes i do accept an unjustified belief. He said that clearly, it seems defensible, but hen he seems to deny that that is even the point. why? He seems to want to avoid saying anything concrete even if he just said it and it was defensible he goes on to change the subject and say this is not something you can even talk about?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-02-2008, 06:48 PM
olmeta olmeta is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Default SKY HOOK ALERT!

Lanier loses this argument just as Bob Wright lost it to Dennett.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-03-2008, 03:34 PM
MemeInjector3000 MemeInjector3000 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 16
Default Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
This is typical of materialists.
Hmmm, that's the same language that the Discovery Institute uses. Quite telling. There's not much point in arguing with people who espouse "magical thinking."

Quote:
"Dan Dennett is a religious extremist"
What an laughable thing to say. Lanier proved himself to be an idiot within the first 10 seconds of this diavlog, and it went downhill from there. Methinks his dreads have grown inward.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-03-2008, 03:55 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!

Lanier's bio. He's been the subject of an awful lot of content-free putdowns here for reasons I can only guess. I think his professional accomplishments tell a story that contradicts that point of view.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.