Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BoboJack]

Expected based on what? And in what? Expected in perception?

Yes future perception.

If I suddenly shot you in the head with a disintegrator ray, destroying the possibility of you perceiving anything, would it still be 100% expected?

No its broken after that. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't expect anything.

And understand what language?

Natural language.

You have just conceded defeat. Your definition of language as it is right now is entirely disconnected from both communication and human understanding. Your examples treat patternguages, if you excuse the portmanteau, as possessing irreducible existence, instead of being useful conceptualizations.

Other sciences work well with simple building blocks, while ignoring how humans work.
Its not very disconnected from humans, humans have to see the patterns and their impact. Otherwise we'd never know of the patterns.
Other science too don't explicitly include humans, because thats too hard.

I still cannot see that. If the rules of Math would force some other rules, they would need to force the rules outside the realm of Math itself, which is an entirely ungrounded reification, otherwise you're claiming that the rules of Math need to be be consistent with the rules of Math, which is quite a bit tautological.

I wanted to say that one can set up rules for math and derive new rules for math from these. And these rules are entirely based in language.
Extending math can be done in math, that was the point. No need for any concept, or anything outside the language.

Your final sentence once again veers towards Sapir-Whorf and the idea that if erase a word, you erase the underlying concept, which ignores how words were formed in the first place.

I just meant that if someone would not want violate some rule of some language, like logic, he'd be restrained.
And maybe there are some kind of sentences which are more believed than others, just because these kind of sentences worked well in the past.

[scrdest]

Expected based on what? And in what? Expected in perception?

Yes future perception.

If I suddenly shot you in the head with a disintegrator ray, destroying the possibility of you perceiving anything, would it still be 100% expected?

No its broken after that. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't expect anything.

We're regressing to the classical tree-in-the-woods problem: if I shot you with the disintegrator ray, presuming your perception is all that is, then WHO WAS PHONE? were you shot or not?

And understand what language?

Natural language.

More specifically? I still don't know what you mean by that.

You have just conceded defeat. Your definition of language as it is right now is entirely disconnected from both communication and human understanding. Your examples treat patternguages, if you excuse the portmanteau, as possessing irreducible existence, instead of being useful conceptualizations.

Other sciences work well with simple building blocks, while ignoring how humans work.
Its not very disconnected from humans, humans have to see the patterns and their impact. Otherwise we'd never know of the patterns.
Other science too don't explicitly include humans, because thats too hard.

You've still contradicted yourself, and contradicted yourself on the very point you were trying to argue for initially: that humans use learned language patterns (phrase now redundant) to make predictions about the world. You've claimed that patterns that aren't understood are languages for you. And you cannot make predictions based on something you don't understand at all.

Also, your argument explicitly deals with how humans make predictions, so yes, you have to deal with how humans work, because that's the entire point of your argument. If we were talking about the way AIs make prediction, you couldn't ignore the way an AI works, but you could ignore how humans work. Those other sciences don't concern themselves with how humans make predictions, therefore they don't need to concern themselves with humans.

I still cannot see that. If the rules of Math would force some other rules, they would need to force the rules outside the realm of Math itself, which is an entirely ungrounded reification, otherwise you're claiming that the rules of Math need to be be consistent with the rules of Math, which is quite a bit tautological.

I wanted to say that one can set up rules for math and derive new rules for math from these. And these rules are entirely based in language.
Extending math can be done in math, that was the point. No need for any concept, or anything outside the language.

And yet, you cannot logically prove logic. And, again, you are treating math as though it was a physical thing, rather than an abstraction. Universe does not run on Math or Physics, it runs on universe and things like Math and Physics are human abstractions that can be used to describe the universe.

Your final sentence once again veers towards Sapir-Whorf and the idea that if erase a word, you erase the underlying concept, which ignores how words were formed in the first place.

I just meant that if someone would not want violate some rule of some language, like logic, he'd be restrained.
And maybe there are some kind of sentences which are more believed than others, just because these kind of sentences worked well in the past.

You can freely violate the rules of logic. A <=> ~A. Math? 2+2 = -9. There. Violated. The thing is, since they are tools supposed to describe reality, if you violate the rules governing them the results are utterly useless.

Also, please provide examples of 'some kind of sentences' in question since it seems somewhat unclear what you mean by that.

[BoboJack]

Also, your argument explicitly deals with how humans make predictions, so yes, you have to deal with how humans work, because that's the entire point of your argument. If we were talking about the way AIs make prediction, you couldn't ignore the way an AI works, but you could ignore how humans work. Those other sciences don't concern themselves with how humans make predictions, therefore they don't need to concern themselves with humans.

I think I'd be easier to understand if I'd replace every 'human' with 'robot' or 'smart ai' because I hope that there is no difference and I argued as if there was none.

We're regressing to the classical tree-in-the-woods problem: if I shot you with the disintegrator ray, presuming your perception is all that is, then WHO WAS PHONE? were you shot or not?

something broken cannot decide that.
I could not decide that if I was shot.
A shot robot, being broken by a shot, doesn't know if he was shot, he didn't do any calculations after being shot.
Some other robot watching the scene may notice the shooting and decides that a robot was shot.

More specifically? I still don't know what you mean by that.

english,german,french,...

You've claimed that patterns that aren't understood are languages for you.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant something like that:
time 1: I don't understand a.
time 2: I understand a now! a always was a pattern! Because someone could have understood it before me.

And yet, you cannot logically prove logic. And, again, you are treating math as though it was a physical thing, rather than an abstraction. Universe does not run on Math or Physics, it runs on universe and things like Math and Physics are human abstractions that can be used to describe the universe.

I don't believe any statement about how real math is or not. I think math can predict things.

You can freely violate the rules of logic. A <=> ~A. Math? 2+2 = -9. There. Violated. The thing is, since they are tools supposed to describe reality, if you violate the rules governing them the results are utterly useless.

I wanted to point out that a robot gains from following a rule if he learned that following that rule is of benefit.
So once the robot decides to follow that rule, he lost the possibility to do the things the rule forbids.

Also, please provide examples of 'some kind of sentences' in question since it seems somewhat unclear what you mean by that.

"Never do something evil" Ok:
Killing is evil, I will never kill.
Stealing is evil, I will never steal.
(just examples, not my beliefs)
Now I will probably not do something if its evil, If I'm unsure I can give reassure myself by saying "Doing A is evil, I will never do A."
And maybe this sentence will strengthen my belief because of the form of the sentence I belief so much in.
One can use english to define rules:
If A is evil then don't do A. If one is convinced of this sentence one can use it to guide ones actions.
And people could even define rules to define new rules.

It boils down to:
I think robots can use the mechanics of some language to create new knowledge. And the robots may use that knowledge, so the knowledge may make them less random than they were before.

[Il Palazzo]

I have read in this thread that my ability to take a dump depends on philosophy, since I have to consciously affirm the existence of the universe first, as well as choose a worldview based on logic and empiricism.
I can't, literally, do shit without philosophy.

And this is why I fucking hate philosophy, despite having loved it for years and eventually becoming embittered - every argument in it comes down to a worthless matter of semantics and language abuse. Modern philosophy is nothing more than communicating without standards so people can communicate poorly and act like it makes them clever.

Amen.