patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

No, what constitutes knowledge is obviously not decided by how many people historically believed it to be true.

How so? Case in point, religious charlatans are frequently more influential than scientific charlatans.

Peter P says

Knowledge is simply a belief. The more people sold on that belief, the stronger it is.

"Truths" are neither necessary nor desired.

That belief system ended centuries ago. For example, Newton discovered the LAW/FACT of gravity by observation. It is true that apples fall no matter what fox and friends says. That is knowledge not belief!

Peter P says

Whatever dominant narrative will be politicized. Perhaps art in the past and science now.

The moon landings, evolution and plate tectonics have all been politicized at one point. Guess what? The minority believers on these issues are completely wrong.

The only thing which politicized climate research is that extremely wealthy interests didn't want to lose money on their coal mines and wells, so they politicized it by spreading wrong information and creating the illusion of controversy where there is none.

The human brain is a collection of neural bundles which collaborate to produce the illusion of a single consciousness. One of the sub-functions of the brain is a coping mechanism to create comfort in the face of frightening change. These coping methods are so strong that they can deny reality in order to make life more livable during periods of high stress or impending massive. For hunter-gatherers, this is a healthy function; in a massive complex civilization which may need to turn on a dime, maybe not.

All around you are people who believe something can't be true because it will mean change. Battered wives tell themselves their husbands don't beat them, or that they won't do it again, because acknowledging such a thing means facing a future alone.

All the oligarchs have to do is divert a small fraction of their loot to sowing doubt through fake "research" institutes consisting of fax machines in empty trailers here and there. They have a scared audience who wants to believe this issue is still a matter of controversy.

There is such a thing as physical reality. It's not a matter of majority opinion, no matter how many shallow relativists want to believe it.

Peter P says

It does not matter. Changes mean profits for some. We should aim to be those people.

This is completely vacant, and that's a nice way of putting it. "Evil" might be a better way of putting it.

Reacting to changing condition not the same as curing them. The latter depends on a meta-narrative concerning whether a condition is good or bad.

Driving species into extinction at a rate of 10,000 times background rates and then making the Earth possibly uninhabitable on a large scale is not a meta-narrative of value judgment. It is bad for humanity. Worse, in the eyes of many, it is bad for business.

Saying that such a thing is undesirable is not a value judgment. If you believe so, you're either an incredible poseur or a psychopath.

HydroCabron says

Driving species into extinction at a rate of 10,000 times background rates and then making the Earth possibly uninhabitable on a large scale is not a meta-narrative of value judgment. It is bad for humanity. Worse, in the eyes of many, it is bad for business.

So-called "species" are nothing but labels in a narrative created by science. "Extinction" is merely a condition in which such labels get shuffled within the narrative. Saving "species" from "extinction" is simply a sentimental exercise to preserve labels.

Things appear to be happening in faster rate. In reality, the time-scale of emergence in the would is getting compressed.

Remember "evil" is "live" spelled backwards. The meaning is of course contextual.

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it.

Such ontological statement is useless and unnecessary, just like anything metaphysical.

JH says

Peter P says

Knowledge is simply a belief. The more people sold on that belief, the stronger it is.

"Truths" are neither necessary nor desired.

That belief system ended centuries ago. For example, Newton discovered the LAW/FACT of gravity by observation. It is true that apples fall no matter what fox and friends says. That is knowledge not belief!

Einstein found a "better" theory. This is a diplomatic way to say that Newton's "laws" were invalidated. Unless you think all theories are at best approximations, subject to future tweaks and "improvements."

Science can be useful. However, worshipping it as the only "true" mode of "knowledge" discovery is counter-productive. We may as well embrace other speculative forms of beliefs and technological systems.

Somehow I think scientists and technologists should behave more like prop-traders.

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it

Touch yourself.

Peter P says

Einstein found a "better" theory.

Actually his theory is just that. Have you ever traveled at the apeed of light? Then you don't know that you will age more slowly. Newtons law should not be considered to be better explained by a relativistic idea. An apple will fall straight down barring drag, wind, or objects in its path. What the hell is wrong with an appapproximation when it perfectly describes every day behavior on earth?

JH says

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it

Touch yourself.

I don't do that too much because I was raised right.

Peter P says

Somehow I think scientists and technologists should behave more like prop-traders.

Considering that that's where the money is, many of us already have.

Peter P says

JH says

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it

Touch yourself.

I don't do that too much because I was raised right.

Hahaha but I haven't gone blind...yet...

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it.

Easy.

Experiment 1: This upcoming tax year, instead of filing a form, tell the IRS to fuck off and don't give them any of your money. If there is no such thing as physical reality, then you won't go to jail.

Experiment 2: Walk into a police station, any police station. Pull out a gun and shout "I'm going to kill all you pigs." If there is no such thing as physical reality, then your consciousness won't cease to exist in a hailstorm of bullets, which are these tiny physical objects that damage a physical human body.

Experiment 3: Grow a beard, put on a turban, and practice your open carry rights while walking onto the White House lawn while screaming "death to the infidels". Again, if there is no such thing as physical reality, then there is no reason not to do this.

It's one thing to pontificate that the universe is all in your mind. It's quite another to actually believe that. The later is called mental illness.

JH says

Hahaha but I haven't gone blind...yet...

Be careful, Call It Crazy did go blind when the horse shot its load into his eye. Well, actually when the second horse shot its load into his other eye.

Dan8267 says

Experiment 1: This upcoming tax year, instead of filing a form, tell the IRS to fuck off and don't give them any of your money. If there is no such thing as physical reality, then you won't go to jail.

They'll just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, no big deal :-)

Peter P says

Such ontological statement is useless and unnecessary, just like anything metaphysical.

PP here wants to be at the forefront of AI but doesn't believe there is a universe.

Well it's settle then: nothing to think about, and in any case: no computer, no AI.

Rin says

They'll just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, no big deal :-)

That's only possible if physical, objective reality is the truth.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

They'll just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, no big deal :-)

That's only possible if physical, objective reality is the truth.

I'm a former STEM person so reality isn't an issue for me.

Stephen Hawking is England's best fantasy writer...the successor to Lewis Carroll.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Such ontological statement is useless and unnecessary, just like anything metaphysical.

PP here wants to be at the forefront of AI but doesn't believe there is a universe.

Well it's settle then: nothing to think about, and in any case: no computer, no AI.

I never claimed a universe does not exist. I am merely agnostic about the nature of the universe. Too many people have strong opinions about metaphysical constructs when such "knowledge" is decidedly undecidable.

Dan8267 says

That's only possible if physical, objective reality is the truth.

Like nothing happens to you in a dream?

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Rin says

Peter P says

Somehow I think scientists and technologists should behave more like prop-traders.

Considering that that's where the money is, many of us already have.

They should also approach science like they would in the trading world. Knowledge should be treated as if it is speculative and disposable.

Any prop-trader will tell you that one does not need durable truths to be profitable.

Peter P says

Any prop-trader will tell you that one does not need durable truths to be profitable.

Prop trading is about making money in the short term, to finance one's retirement. Once you no longer need to rely on a money making venue, then you can become more idealistic.

If one's a real scientist ... you do it for truth, justice, and the American way. The money angle doesn't matter when one's true.

Thus, when I'm independently wealthy and can do my own research, I'll tell everyone to f'ck off, because I don't need their approval, to get my grants renewed. They can ostracize me but I'll continually remind them that they're a bunch of b*tches for some academic or corporate entity.

In the end, I'll be proven right because they can't drive me into poverty like they did to Galileo, Tesla, and others.

And unlike a lot of Christian types, I won't rely on forgiveness. I'll continually humiliate my opponents and destroy their self-worth, their self-esteem. Since I don't need the money, anyone who plays that game will look like a fool in front of their friends and family. Most b*tches can't stand being insulted.

Rin says

If one's a real scientist ... you do it for truth, justice, and the American way. The money angle doesn't matter when one's true.

Definitely do it for your passion though. "Profits" need not be monetary.

Peter P says

Rin says

If one's a real scientist ... you do it for truth, justice, and the American way. The money angle doesn't matter when one's true.

Definitely do it for your passion though. "Profits" need not be monetary.

But also, you shouldn't care about what your peers think either.

If ppl disagree or put you down, what's wrong with a bit of attitude, "F'ck off". You see, in this world of ours, academicians and others are afraid of simply dropping a cinder block on someone else's head because of the fear of backlash.

If a lot of independently wealthy scientists simply stated their positions with well thought out arguments and experiments (and yes, telling others to f'ck off), then perhaps, science can be viable again.

So far, I see no one, willing to stick their necks out. against the establishment.

Rin says

But also, you shouldn't care about what your peers think either.

Yes. This is true for any endeavor. Of course, it is always nice to have "fuck you" money. :-)

Rin says

So far, I see no one, willing to stick their necks out.

This is why a future neo-feudalistic society may be interesting. We can go back to the patronage system.

Rin says

And unlike a lot of Christian types, I won't rely on forgiveness.

Well, sometimes apathy works better than either forgiveness or vengefulness.

Peter P says

Rin says

And unlike a lot of Christian types, I won't rely on forgiveness.

Well, sometimes apathy works better than either forgiveness or vengefulness.

It's not so much about vengeful but more about destroying someone else's self-esteem/self-worth, so that they can't come up again, preaching lies w/o realizing that they'd been out'ed before.

Rin says

It's not so much about vengeful but...

Even as an independently wealthy scientist you are still quite small against the herd of "institutionalized" researchers.

Won't you be happier focusing on your own work?

Peter P says

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Tell that to Einstein. He did exactly that.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Tell that to Einstein. He did exactly that.

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

Peter P says

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

If you believe AI is possible then you must accept that there is a tangible physical world, that a program can observe this world, and that knowledge is derived from this observation.

I say the sky is blue. That's knowledge. It resulted from direct observation and can verified with more observations.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

If you believe AI is possible then you must accept that there is a tangible physical world, that a program can observe this world, and that knowledge is derived from this observation.

I say the sky is blue. That's knowledge. It resulted from direct observation and can verified with more observations.

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

Note that I am merely agnostic about the nature of reality, just like everything metaphysical.

Heraclitusstudent says

I say the sky is blue. That's knowledge. It resulted from direct observation and can verified with more observations.

I wonder what Wittgenstein has to say about this.

Peter P says

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

A video stream needs perception.

If all you provide is data, then by definition this data is meaningless. i.e. you will not have a program that understands what is going on. See Searle. See the history of AI (Cyc for example). The data becomes knowledge once it is anchored in perception.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

A video stream needs perception.

If all you provide is data, then by definition this data is meaningless. i.e. you will not have a program that understands what is going on. See Searle. See the history of AI (Cyc for example). The data becomes knowledge once it is anchored in perception.

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Peter P says

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Sure, but the ontological layer is what is perceived.
There is no semantic outside of this.
AI would be pretty useless if not understanding the world in which we live. To understand it, it needs to perceive it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Sure, but the ontological layer is what is perceived.

There is no semantic outside of this.

AI would be pretty useless if not understanding the world in which we live. To understand it, it needs to perceive it.

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Peter P says

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Like what? Playing chess?

On second thought, a belief in machine perception does not even presuppose an objective reality.

Two possibilities:

1. machine perception is an extension to your perception (you see that the machine is seeing)

2. machines can be thought of having their own realities that somehow correspond to ours

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Like what? Playing chess?

;-)