As I said, the only non-arbitrary starting point for knowledge to begin, which is implicit in all knowledge, is the distinction between something which is observed and ourselves as observers of it. Before we can know anything about anything, we must first observe something which we subsequently attempt to know (ie determine the nature of).
Clardan
A recent AI article in Scientific American noted that peek-a-boo is the AI holy grail. I have been thinking about that a lot recently, not only because peek-a-boo is fun to play with kids, but because an infant in the cradle can play peek-a-boo with a relative stranger and still tell the difference between self and other no matter which of them is doing the hiding. I would agree that the distinction between the observed and ourselves as observers and interpreters of what is observed is fundamental.
I think Blü is entitled to his axioms:
There is a world external to the self. The senses are capable of perceiving this world. Reason is a valid tool.They describe the reality that he observes, just as the theist is entitled to the axiom that all observations are manifestations of the will of God, and Descartes is entitled to his view that observations are manifestations of his will. I agree that Blü's axioms are probably the best description of our interactions with what we observe, but he has no greater claim to TRUTH than the bible thumpers.
I have no problem with a separate material external reality that we can discover and manipulate with science and technology. I also have no problem with a separate internal reality in other people by which they view the world. If it includes a God that watches over them and will take care of them if they pray hard enough
how hard, hard enough to make water flow uphill. Lazarus Longthat is as much their privilege as it is Blü's and mine to depend on materialistic science and technology. I find the God that many pray to is worthless, but it is still their free choice to do so. Sometimes I would like to warn them that God and Herm followers are subject to evolution just like all the other animals out there, but it would do no good, and probably annoy them in the process.
1 comment:
Comments found on the Creating Passionate Users Blog regarding Peekaboo Theory
From the SA article, “The Virtue of Aesthetics:"
"An unclothed person who has only arms or part of a shoulder jutting out from behind a shower curtain or who is behind a diaphanous veil is much more alluring than a completely uncovered nude. Just as the thinking parts of our brain enjoy intellectual problem solving, the visual system seems to enjoy discovering a hidden object.”
Evolution has seen to it that the very act of searching for the hidden object is enjoyable, not just the final "aha" of recognition--lest you give up the chase.
Otherwise, we would not pursue a potential prey or mate glimpsed partially behind bushes or dense fog.
If something dangerous is hiding in the bushes, it's damn useful for the brain to reconstruct a complete tiger from just a few bits of orange and black peeking out between the leaves. Apparently it's all the little mini-aha moments that send messages to the brain that prompt still more searches and more mini-ahas until the final BIG aha where your brain nails it.
In the unexciting language of Cognitive Science, this human mental faculty is identified as spatialization, the ability to discern a “whole” by mentally constructing a coherent image, idea, etc given a limited amount of clues to aid discernment of the whole. The Game Shows Concentration and Name That Tune are examples of visual and aural spatialization in action. Another typical use is to complete the sketching of a city’s 3-D model layout after only viewing a small part of the city’s skyline.
It is likely that the authors of “The Virtue of Aesthetics” observed enough examples of human problem-solving to sense the naturally occurring enjoyment found in the self-perceived success of each such activity. As a teacher, it was my goal to see each of my students experience at least one “ah-ha moment” per class; the light bulb turning on.
It makes me wonder about the reference to AI; what is it within a human that develops the spatialization faculty and enjoys problem solving and can it be taught to a machine? Viagra was an accidental success and was a “failed medicine” that had an interesting side effect; would an AI program know this or discard the medicine because it failed to produce the intended result?
Post a Comment