583500+ entries in 0.316s
mircea_popescu: i superficially suspect
this discussion proves
there can never be
turing ai.,
mircea_popescu: well yeah but if it did violate restatement
then either i'm wrong or no ai can be made
to run on lisp machine.
undata tries
to create an arbitrary symbol in his mind
mircea_popescu: o for sure, im not even getting into
the point of
the article. i just went on a
tangent for objection reasons, like i do.
mircea_popescu: that
thing IS intelligent, just like me and you and
the dragonfly.
mircea_popescu: mp's lemma of artificial intelligence requires any computer program
that exhibits in fact ai
to depend in its functioning on
the naming of its functions, and
that self-metaprogramming be a part of its working.
mircea_popescu: that's what
thought is, entirely, all
the
time : suggestively named strings.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform but my point is
that
this argument misses
the very point of what
thought is.
nubbins`: undata
terrorizing realization
that no such
thing exists, etc
undata: nubbins`: flashback
to 19,
tripping like hell,
trying
to find a firm
thought
to stand upon
mircea_popescu: but since
the article spoke of "substance" in
thought... well...
mircea_popescu: not
that any of
these subtle considerations have any sort of practical effect or importance,
assbot: TripTank - Stoned Ape
Theory - YouTube
mircea_popescu: nor, ironically, are actual logic processing machines all
that intelligent.
nubbins`: <+mircea_popescu>
the argument is whether
they're actually different. <<< in
the sense
that each game of wol is actually different
mircea_popescu: and
the brain is in no sense and
to no degree a logic processing machine.
mircea_popescu: but
that doesn't mean
they're not
the same damned function.
mircea_popescu: if one function returns rnd(0,15) and
the other rnd(20,42) it is easy
to establish which returns
the larger number,
mircea_popescu: undata
the argument mind, isn't
that some eliza-trees don't make much better looking reality-clothes
than others.
undata: "gravity" holds
the moon
to
the earth
nubbins`: and somewhere, somewhen,
the sound of keys clacking on a keyboard was heard
nubbins`: no
true eliza would offer such an argument
mircea_popescu: so, yeah. all
thinkers are eliza,
the distinguishing among elizas, like among whores, purely an application of one's own aesthetic preference.
mircea_popescu: you can
test
them, of course, but
this is practically speaking aesthetics.
mircea_popescu: well,
the reason might be
that
there couldn't be such a
thing.
there's nothing
that makes "good science" better
than a pile of shanonized papers.
mircea_popescu: what is
the method
through which i could write software
that distinguishes between actual science and global-warming-science ?
mircea_popescu: not every whore is a partner you'd entertain, but
that has little
to do with
the principles involved.
mircea_popescu: undata if you will. asciilifeform yes, essentially, which is why
the microscope hammer
thing never persuaded me.
mircea_popescu: the ability of whores
to distinguish
themselves from "those cheap streetwalkers" is not
that important globally.
mircea_popescu: if you recognise a naive romanticism in one field,
the other should also be obvious.
mircea_popescu: and, obviously, fucking. ie, a manipulation of
the subject according
to
the rules of
the reality it inhabits.
mircea_popescu: outside of
this, all
that's left is eliza-understanding.
mircea_popescu: the sort of understanding you propose is a relationship between mind and object
that's
transcendental.
the ready comparison is
the supposed
transcendental relation between man and woman.
undata: one of you is using understand in a much stricter sense
than
the other.
mircea_popescu: so : your idea of understanding would be in fact "transformative love". ie, it'd give you
the ability
to
turn, if not marble into virgin, at least whore into housewife.
mircea_popescu: let us not discuss
this in
terms of understanding, something we care about. let us instead discuss in
terms of love, something we don't care about.
mircea_popescu: it is NEVER
the case anyone ever understood anything whatsoever in any case at any point in human history
mircea_popescu: 'It follows
that he cannot know
that certain people at certain
times do not understand in Parry-or Eliza-like ways.
That is
to say, he has no way of knowing
that we do not ourselves sometimes function by means of "clever
tricks".' actually, i will go as far as
to say
that it is always certainly
the case understanding happens
through "clever
tricks"
mircea_popescu: of course it does, but so ? energy states in a semiconductor also conflict, in
the abstract
mircea_popescu: they don't know how
to compute whether x option ios better
than y option in any situation, but
they do know you don't just walk into mordor
nubbins`: closed encounters of
the 4th kind
mircea_popescu: basically,
to
teach a muppet something you must construct a literary work which jives with
the preexisting dreamworld he inhabits
mircea_popescu: will ONLY learn from fiction, inasmuch as
they find a way
to link it
to
their own fiction.
mircea_popescu: imo,
they're 4th level learners. will not learn from
thought ; nor from other
mircea_popescu: not
that it's false, but
they're not women. so... how ?