[MD] Quality Conversations

[Joseph Maurer]

On Sunday 25 May 2008 1:26 PM Matt writes to DMB:

Hey DMB,
 
Matt said:
But, as monists, particularly mystics, like to point out, the world is all
interconnected. In this regard, I used to like to say that clearing up
economic/political problems should be the priority, but now I'm coming to
think that it might be a precondition to really actually making progress on
spiritual problems.
 
DMB said:
Really? I tend to think its the other way around.
 
Matt:
Yeah, that sounds about what I thought you and Pirsig (and certainly
Heidegger) thought.  That might be the difference that everything else stems
from--politics first v. spirit first.
 
Let me also add, that because of the nature of cultural change, what Dewey
called the means/ends continuum (where you decide on means to get to an end,
but then as you enact the means, your end changes, so you have to perform
the whole routine again), that we'll be doing them all at once, at about the
same time.  I don't think we will (nor should we) neglect the spiritual and
focus all our cultural energy on the political.  That's why I do
philosophy--it is a focus on, what I call though others may find it a
perversion of the word, the spiritual, though I try and stay up on politics.
There are others who focus on politics and I think our culture may be better
off with this kind of division of labor.
 
<snip>

On Sunday 25 May 2008 4:09 PM Krimel writes to DMB:

<snip>

[dmb]
If I ever had a holodeck, I'd spend some virtual time with Kate Beckinsale.
You know, because she's really, really into Heidegger.
 
[Krimel]
At last we find agreement. I suspect the Jessica Alba has a rich
appreciation for Russell and that Charlize Theron has expertise in
information theory. I would sincerely like to probe the three of them for
their deep insights on these matters.
 
On Sunday 25 May 2008 2:05 AM Marsha writes to Krimel:

<snip>

I cannot explain further at the moment, maybe never.  I am finding it
necessary to learn a foreign language to realize something that should have
been mine as a birthright.  It is something I know in my bones, but do not
have the language to conceptualize.
 
Even with Buddha, it is said that he spoke from the womb.  Well, MAMA is the
womb!!!
 
Marsha
 
Hi All,

Maurice Nicoll a student of Jung¹s in the third book of his Psychological
Commentaries on the writings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky:  men and women have
different approaches to enlightenment!

[Joe]
I see a difference at the beginning of evolution.  The organic level is
two__ RDOL: reproduction division objective language (man), and RPOL:
reproduction penetration objective language (women).  How are
³economic/political problems², or ³spiritual problems² embraced by different
sexes?

 
Joe



On 5/25/08 4:09 PM, "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:

> dmb says:
> I don't know that Dreyfus makes a biological argument. I mean, its great if
> the "enlightened" ones working on artificial intelligence understand how
> cognition evolved but I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with
> a shift in metaphysical assumptions. Please feel free to present a
> counter-example or otherwise correct me here, but I got the impression that
> there is a very limited number of people working in this area and that the
> whole approach was fundamentally flawed. I got the impression that Dreyfus
> wasn't trying to discourage them so much as simply explain why it hasn't,
> doesn't and can't ever work. And the flaw is such that even wildly increased
> "machine capacities" won't make any difference.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Beyond the Wiki on him I know nothing of Dreyfus so I don't have much to say
> about him. I did find that three of the classes he has taught at Berkley are
> available on iTunes, including two on Heidegger. I downloaded them all but
> it will be a while before I can listen to them. My point is that whether or
> not a machine passes the Turing test is a technical and empirical problem
> not a philosophical problem. An astounding degree of progress has been made
> in this area. Much of this progress can be seen in computer games where AIs
> function as opponents and some of the best minds in the field are working to
> make these AI opponents better and better.
> 
> I think Ian's claim about the term "artificial" misses the point completely
> since what we generally mean by AI is an inorganic intelligence or an
> engineered intelligence. I personally do not see anything in principle that
> would rule out the possibility of such an entity and I would for the most
> part follow Kurzweil in this. Right now the hold up is largely
> technological. The human brain is composed of about 100 billion nerve cells
> and each of these cells can connect to up to 10,000 other cells. This is a
> network of extraordinary complexity and replicating it is beyond our current
> capabilities. I don't think this will be true in the future.
> 
>> From the little bit I have seen on Dreyfus he appears to argue that a
> machine intelligence would not be a human intelligence. Well, duh! So what?
> 
> 
> [dmb]
> Like I said, Krimel, you could input every fact in the world and it still
> wouldn't matter. Its clear that you think the whole suggestion is
> "ridiculous" but think about it for a moment. Its not even about the limits
> of engineering or the possibilities of technology so much as the limits of
> the assumptions upon which science has operated for several hundred years.
> They're basically trying to create a machine version of the subjective self
> in an objective world but the failure to do so is not a technical failure,
> per se. The problem is extending SOM too far, like trying to use Newtonian
> physics to explain the subatomic realm or relativity. The limits of those
> assumptions are exposed by the efforts in AI in the same way. The standard
> conceptions begin to fail in these areas.
> 
> [Krimel]
> I honestly have no idea what SOM is supposed to mean anymore. Pirsig's
> version is largely an argument against positions that no one actually holds.
> And his rants against science are mostly about his own idealized view of it.
> If the current research in the field is flawed then so what? The nature of
> science is self correcting. When someone comes up with a productive new way
> of thinking about it others will run with it. Physics was not "limited" by
> Newton. In fact it was by extending Newton that new insights emerged. As I
> am loathe to place any limit on the power of new insights; I am loathe to
> declare AI out of bounds. I would say that anyone who does so is just
> setting themselves up to look quaint to future generations.
> 
> [dmb]
> One of the ways to get at it is by way of language. The developments in the
> understanding of language over the last century or so have led people to say
> things like, "we are suspended in language". You were involved in the recent
> thread on that topic, eh Krimel?
> 
> [Krimel]
> I have been involved in several threads along these lines recently and in
> all of them I have been deeply suspicious of the emphasis placed on
> language. I would not for a second say that language in not important or
> that it does not play a major roll in shaping our world view. But I don't
> think it is everything. I don't think language entirely shapes our thoughts.
> I don't think that all of our thoughts are linguistic and I think that
> thinking shapes language at least as much as language shapes thinking.
> 
> [dmb]
> You'll often hear people talk about language in terms of a "web" of beliefs,
> for example. You'll hear developmental psychologists talk about stages of
> growth in terms of a shift to a whole new gestalt or philosophers of science
> talk about paradigm shift. In all these cases, there isn't just more and
> more of the same but a shift in the whole structure of understanding.
> 
> [Krimel]
> I agree very much that our thoughts are a "web" of associations that are
> strengthened and weakened by experience. This associationistic view has a
> rich history that goes back at least to Locke. It was integral to Donald
> Hebb's theories of how the mind works and is still current today. While I
> think that language can provide clues as to the nature of our patterns of
> association I don't think that language provides the whole picture.
> 
> [dmb]
> Language, then, more or less dictates how we see the world, or rather it
> determines the shape of our world. Thus language is the house of being.
> Language is the world we live in, not a reflection of the world we life in,
> see?
> 
> [Krimel]
> Again I think it is just as true to say that how we see the world dictates
> our language and how we talk about the world. It is not a one way street. I
> think language is how we communicate about the world we live in but it is
> not the world. So I would say that it is just a reflection and not the whole
> shooting match.
> 
> [dmb]
> The AI guys think robots live in our world, so to speak, and don't realize
> that our world is not THEE world. They want to have the intelligibility
> without the being upon which it is based. Am I making sense?
> 
> [Krimel]
> I can't think of anyone who says robots live at all or that an AI would
> necessarily be a robot. I also notice my earlier point about the synthesis
> of human and machine has been soundly ignored. I insist that computers and
> the availability of shared memory online is "artificially" enhancing our
> intelligence not only in terms of our access to "facts" but in terms of the
> tools we have to access and process those facts.
> 
> dmb replies:
> Yes, every viewer over 12 years old knows how it works. Thanks all the same,
> Dr. Science. The transporter idea depends on the assumption that a person is
> identical to their physical structure, that a person can be taken apart,
> shipped and re-assembled like a machine. And somehow, the person's
> consciousness could travel in the stream of de-patterned atoms. That's the
> hard part. In that sense, the holodecks and food replicators are far more
> plausible. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> As every viewer of 12 year of age knows, that atoms are not shipped and
> reassembled; it is the pattern that is sent not the constituent particles.
> But I think "consciousness" arise through those patterns and see nothing in
> principle wrong with the concept. But again this is a case that can
> ultimately be decided through technology not philosophy.
> 
> [dmb]
> If I ever had a holodeck, I'd spend some virtual time with Kate Beckinsale.
> You know, because she's really, really into Heidegger.
> 
> [Krimel]
> At last we find agreement. I suspect the Jessica Alba has a rich
> appreciation for Russell and that Charlize Theron has expertise in
> information theory. I would sincerely like to probe the three of them for
> their deep insights on these matters.
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/