The Human Superiority Complex
At the foundation of Singularity theory lies the idea of recursive self-improvement. Advances in artificial intelligence or the augmentation of humans is expected to lead to further advances in intelligence enhancement, and so on, until some unknown barrier, perhaps set only by the laws of nature. This unfolding "intelligence explosion" has been called a Singularity by some. Whether or not Singularity is the best word, it has stuck and will continue to stick, so trying to wrestle with the terminology is pointless at this stage.
As you can see by the content on this blog, I'm obviously some sort of a believer of the Singularity idea. Most of the earth's inhabitants have never heard of the idea and never thought of it, though it did originate in 1965. Since then, it has mostly been discussed by computer scientists working in artificial intelligence, but a decade or two ago it started slowly creeping into the public consciousness - through science/technology and futurist enthusiast types, mostly. The challenge is taking it beyond the geek crowd, and into the scene of regular everyday smart people, like academics, educated professionals, venture capitalists, and the like.
The assumptions underlying the Singularity are pretty basic.
- Intelligence is a phenomenon based on electrochemical activity in the brain.
- Other mediums, like computers, can theoretically implement intelligence.
- The study of intelligence will eventually let us create these implementations.
- At some point, they'll gain the ability to replicate and self-improve.
- The impact on the world will be huge.
Unfortunately, I'd bet that over 95% of humanity disagrees with the first assumption. The main reason is because the relevant science was only discovered in the last couple hundred years, but humanity has been busy believing that our brains have been running based on divine mandate for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years. The first book of the Bible and the Torah, Genesis, strongly implies that only God can create humans, animals, plants, etc., from raw materials. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 91% of American adults believe in God.
Most people are dualists. They believe the mind and body are made of two different things, and work in two different ways. The body can be physically repaired by doctors because it's natural and understandable. The mind can't be physically repaired because it's special and immaterial. Nevermind that brain surgery happens every day and thousands of people have brain implants. The Judeo-Christian religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - are fundamentally based on dualistic philosophy.
It's not easy to convey a five-step argument to the public when 95% of your audience won't even accept point #1.
The key is to find an audience where the majority accepts the first point. This can be done at places like Google HQ, the computer science department at Stanford, and atheist philosophy clubs. All are good places to start talking about the Singularity.
Conciseness demands tossing out as much unnecessary material as possible when making your argument. Jettisoning superfluous discussion over dualism vs. monism is absolutely essential if you're going to get anywhere in transmitting the Singularity idea to newbies. You've probably argued about it with others for hours already, and there's a limit to what most people can stand.
A good way to jettison ideas you don't intend to argue about is to be dismissive and make fun of them. For example, one can say that just because dualists' ideas are disconnected from reality doesn't mean that the physics of their brain is. Another gem is this chart from Wikipedia, which describes Descartes' lame, 17th-century ideas about the mind and body:
God of the gaps, anyone? Many atheists have not resigned from dualist views yet. If you know an atheist whom you suspect is a closet dualist, present them with this chart and ask them what to label the upper triangle, if not "God". Your "soul"? If the box has no label, then mental and physical events are connected in the same causal fabric, and follow the same basic rules. Which means we are utterly guaranteed to eventually determine the brain's workings, like we did those of the heart and stomach, and create artificial replacements with superior performance.
Anyone who can reasonably claim that this reverse-engineering process would take over 100 years is almost certainly a closet dualist. I propose that all monists personally expect AI to arrive before 2100.
But many monists, such as the majority of the transhumanist community, are still sketchy regarding the idea of an AI self-replicating and self-enhancing autonomously to the point where it becomes the primary shaper of the world. I propose that such doubts are based on a human superiority complex, plain and simple. Our species is so full of itself that it slaughters millions of animals daily with impunity - why would it acknowledge the possibility of superintelligent AI with abilities greater than ours in all domains?
It is extremely difficult to get people to relinquish their religious beliefs. Dualism is a component of religious belief, thus it seems like attacks on theistic dualism are doomed to failure. As a result of this, I suggest that those who wish to spread acceptance of the Singularity meme focus on the other philosophical flaw I mentioned - the human superiority complex.
Interestingly, one of the best tools for fighting this superiority complex is probably science fiction, which regularly features alien races of all shapes, sizes, and intelligence levels. Greater-than-human intelligence is not hard to imagine for most science fiction fans. But by science fiction, I mean science fiction stories, not Hollywood movies, which portray nonhumans in a way that only reinforces the human superiority complex.
If you want to encourage people to think about the Singularity rationally, getting them to read a little science fiction may be a good bet. But too much science fiction can cause people to get lazy when it comes to considering the nuts and bolts of the situation. People have to find their own balance. Let me just remark that reading no science fiction at all is definitely reading too little.
Featured resources:
Students with easy internet access are favouring going for online courses than attending the courses in person. This is partially because of the ultra-friendly online software available on the site. These sites also have subject specialists who can be consulted via voip. In case of opting out of a course, there are added options of data recovery as well. This kind of information is much more easily available now, thanks to the million web hosting blog fanatics out there.
April 19th, 2007 - 04:13
I waged this battle even with friends. One good friend insists that “human mind must be something so transcendantly strange” it cannot be anything other than a quantum computational proces. And yes, figuring that one out lies far, far in the future in the i-dont-have-to-deal-with-the-logical-implications-la-la-laland.
Indeed, Descartes all over again, beating dogs with a stick, insisting they are nothing but machines.
April 19th, 2007 - 07:49
Funny you were to mention Descartes, as it is the modern neuropsychologist that’s carving HIS innards up, saying that his pain is nothing but a built-in reaction.
Regardless, I find that the mere process of teaching people the new knowledge uncovered in neuropsychology and biology will slowly erode away the misconceptions about the role human “soul”.
Recommending people to read scifi and telling them to think about the lessons it teaches is like giving them a fantasy book and telling them to draw lessons from it to their lives and thinking.
Before the inner workings of human brain are uncovered and explained, it’s a pretty moot to try get those outside the field in question to think about the implications, since they can obviously (to them) see that *it* (the nature of human intelligence) isn’t so.
Michael, you said that it is the human superiority complex that drives and makes us justify the slaughter of animals and other creatures of less apparent intellect? What about a situation where a person would no more value on human life than on animal, meaning that he would kill a human as he would an ant? Any problems in that situation?
April 19th, 2007 - 08:19
I should note that one doesn’t necessarily need to be a dualist in order to think that reverse-engineering will take longer than ’till 2100. One can always think that the processes in the brain are simply so complex and intricate that it will take us a very, very, very long time to dechiper them.
April 19th, 2007 - 13:29
I think that it is obvious that the reason many put the timeframe of creating AI and intelligence enhancement technologies out so far is fear. A great example of this is Douglas Hofstadter’s talk at the Singularity Summit. He spoke about a talk he gave in 1993 entitled “Who Will We Be In 2093.” This was latter changed to “Who Will We Be In 2493.”
The following quote from Hofstadter from the Singularity Summit regarding Ray Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns sums-up why the name was changed:
“It’s a fascinating hypothesis. Needless to say it’s an empirical hypothesis; it’s not something somebody is going to prove rigorously. I’m not going to try to describe their scenarios. That would take too much time and they will do a very eloquent job of describing those scenarios. I will simply say that I was worried because I cling to the idea of humanity as a beautiful and sublime thing. The idea of a very, very rapid transition within a century, where in fact essentially all of us would become things of the past within a 100 years, the whole notion of the human condition would recede into history – that struck me as awfully fast.”
Note: I don’t necessarily agree with Kurzweil, I just think too much attention has been paid to Kurweil’s timelines with respect to his life expectancy, and not enough armchair psychoanalysis on the reasons why his critics believe what *they* believe.
April 19th, 2007 - 13:48
It’s also worth noting that there is a certain amount of “random number generation” in the human thinking process. I suppose you could say that I fall into the camp of quantum computation, as it were — but not *predominantly* (or, rather, *solely*) so. Rather, I simply acknowledge that the machine of the human brain developed in a physical world where quantum effects occur, and until we know one way or the other it seems somewhat silly to try to disqualify something without any material evidence within the operating hardware we’re examining. We still can’t explain, for example, why or how spontaneous thoughts or innovations/epiphanies occur.
Now, even so — I still essentially believe that we will discern the language and mechanism of the human brain within 20 years’ time. Perhaps not sufficiently to produce the equivalent of the works of Shakespeare, but certainly we’ll have the grammar and the letters, as it were.
There is some interesting work going on in the area of Parapsychology (in such universities as MIT) regarding the impact on random events, by human intent. Someday it might even develop into actual science rather than simple statistical observation. Right now it will take a great deal more before it reaches that state — if ever.
So what I suppose I’m saying here is that I don’t think necessarily that simply being a “dualist” inherently/*ALWAYS* dictates that science can’t comprehend the neural language anytime soon. Hell, by definition, if it interacts with the physical world then it is bound to do so according to mechanical laws that can be codified and comprehended.
So if there IS a “God”, then “God” *MUST* be a machine. Machina Ex Deus. :)
April 19th, 2007 - 13:54
Here’s another reason to fear robots, they eat old people’s medicine!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVnkd7ot_pw
April 19th, 2007 - 14:12
Gully, Hofstadter is truly scared, no doubt about it. I have friends who side with him, and I believe they too are just afraid. It just mucks up their plans too much to think about AI in the near future.
Agreed. You will be seeing plenty of such analysis on this blog. This post was originally going to be more aggressive, but I always pressure myself into taking it easy for some reason. The fact is that I believe many popular ideas on AI and intelligence are absolutely hilarious in how wrong they are, and I think I can convey that to others.
Ian,
Neurons are too big, and too warm, and too error-tolerant, to have anything to do with quantum effects. This is absolutely fundamental. In fact, there is a limit to lower bounds on cell size because of *molecular dynamics* issues with stability – never mind quantum issues. Cells must be large and stable to perturbations. Quantum perturbations are the smallest we know of. They occur on a much smaller scale than familiar life processes.
I disqualify it. There is plenty of evidence.
You too? :(
We can’t explain, in full detail, why basic things occur. Like sneezing. We can’t describe the exact information flow between the stimuli and the output. Does that mean it depends on quantum effects to happen at all? Fuck no.
Quantum mechanics is a VERY SPECIFIC branch of theories that deals with ATOMIC and SUB-ATOMIC behavior and becomes irrelevant when looking at systems as huge as proteins, never mind neurons. There’s never been a scientific theory, not even evolution, so widely misrepresented and misinterpreted by the public. Why do people grasp for a subatomic theory when trying to explain phenomena that occurs in peta-atom and exa-atom aggreggates? Why not grasp for theories from meteorology to explain the brain? The scale difference is the same.
:( :( :(
Read this:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=834
In practice, it almost always does.
If by machine you mean physical automata, sure. If you mean AI, no. God could also be some individual that gets ahold of powerful IA technology.
April 19th, 2007 - 15:42
While I also doubt there’s anything to parapsychology, posting a link about Uri Geller in order to categorically deny it is pretty disingenuous.
April 19th, 2007 - 15:42
Re: Evidence — where?
Re: Quantum effects — Neurons themselves must resilient to perturbations, yes. But as you well know, as a substrate for electrochemical reactions, the activity itself is subject to stochastic quantum effects; electronic systems themselves are capable of being sensitive to quantum effects — hence our own quantum computers. So your argument here is actually rather silly, especially as I only stated that it was *possible* that there was some process utilized we don’t yet know of. And as to your example of meteorology; I’ll one-up you. Full moons are known to have an effect (minimal) on the irratibility of emotional responses. Police actually schedule greater staffing for full-moon nights, for exactly this. The reason is actually quite simple — variations in gravitic effects on the behavior of water causes subtle variations in the ionic behavior of the water in our bodies. So you might want to rethink that argument, Michael. :)
Re: Parapsychology/Geller — Geller was an absolute fraud. That also has absolutely nothing to do with the research going on at MIT, which is based entirely on random-number generation and statistical observations. Please also further note that I did *NOT* state that it was science yet. Just something interesting.
Re: Dualism in practice — again, a total nonsequitor to my statement. :) What a thing is *IN PRACTICE* is absolutely irrelevant to what it *MUST* be.
Re: Machina Ex Deus — human beings are machines and you know it. I was talking about mechanical principles. :) In that sense, every human being is an AGI with an evolved biological substrate.
April 19th, 2007 - 15:56
I have to rephrase a specific point of mine, though; when I said “we can’t explain spontaneous thoughts” what I *SHOULD* have said was “we can’t *begin* to explain [...]“.
I’m more than willing to admit this could merely be the result of the lack of ability to observe spontaneity in a controlled environment, and could have absolutely nothing to do with quantum effects. But by definition, *IF* there is “random-number generation” involved in the function of the brain, then there *MUST* be ‘quantum-scale effect’. All ‘truly’ random-number generation is reliant upon quantum-scale effects.
So far as I have noticed there hasn’t been anything that has *begun* to rule out that possibility.
“Look — all’s I’m sayin’ is; there are known knowns, and there are known unknowns. But there are *ALSO* UNKNOWN unknowns. Things that we don’t *KNOW* that we don’t know! So what that means is — the absence of evidence is *NOT* the evidence of absence!!”
“What?”
– The Boondocks
April 19th, 2007 - 15:59
The link isn’t just about Uri Geller – it’s also about Randi and the fact he has has a $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate statistically significant psychic effects in a controlled setting. The “microparapsychology” spinoffs, like the MIT research, are sad attempts at finding an effect where there is none. What little effect they uncover is due to confirmation bias. Also notable in the article I linked was the fact that two young magicians were able to fool the parapsychology community into thinking they were genuine psychics for some years. I could go on and on and on, but why? If you’re interested you’ll continue to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
To me, and most materialists, parapsychology is so pseudoscientific as to literally *not be worth talking about*. The more we learn about the brain and evolutionary biology, the more absurd it looks, but it could take decades before people finally give it up for good. I’m just taking the time to be extremely dismissive towards it, because, well, I think it’s worth being extremely dismissive towards.
Regarding quantum effects playing a role in cognition, it’s the same thing. Disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not even worth speculating on. The most recent, most solid argument against it is from Max Tegmark, but there are hundreds of neuroscientists who have spoken out about it and it would take forever to dig up and link each one.
I thought the full moon effect was due to it being brighter out, therefore motivating more people to go out and be active, therefore causing more problems due to the greater activity level. I’m incredibly skeptical that “variations in gravitic effects on the behavior of water causes subtle variations in the ionic behavior of the water in our bodies”, but feel free to cite a paper if you have one.
Standard Cartesian dualism does seem to assert that we can’t uncover the workings of the mind, because it’s aphysical. The interface won’t let us probe the details, because we can’t experiment on the mind any more than we can experiment on a ghost or soul with physical instruments.
Sure, a god, or demigod, or mere ‘mortal’, will be a physical machine. Nothing controversial about that.
This is a famous Rumsfeld quote.
April 19th, 2007 - 16:01
Sure, there might be some as-yet-undiscovered structure in our neurons that somehow manage to do quantum computation in spite of the high temperature. Is there any reason to suppose it, though? Any similarities between mental and quantum processes are only superficial.
Cite on the full moon stuff, please. I calculate the tidal force across a human body to be a few nanonewtons. Besides, shouldn’t the orientation of the person (as opposed to the Earth and Sun) with respect to the Moon be what matters?
I do think there is a decent argument to be made for dualism (or non-computationalism, at least) on the basis of qualia. (Insert groan from the zombies in the audience.) See here, for instance: http://www.davidchess.com/words/poc/lanier_zombie.html Note that his alternative philosophy (part 3) makes no sense to me, but the rest is compelling. (This isn’t to say the evidence for functionalism isn’t even more so.)
And Michael, I think it’s pretty silly to say all monists expect AI before 2100. There are plenty who think technological progress is slowing, or civilization will fall before then, or the problem is just too damn hard. I certainly agree they’re wrong, but it’s ridiculous to call them all dualists.
April 19th, 2007 - 19:06
*sigh* — Try paying attention to what I said, gentlemen. I didn’t state that the brain does quantum computation — in fact I stated that it doesn’t. I stated, however, that as an electrochemical system it is — like any other electrical, chemical, mechanical, or any combination therein — vulnerable to stochastically resonant quantum-scale effects. IF the brain has genuine random-number generation then it is utilizing quantum effect in some manner. Maybe this is splitting hairs somewhat, but the simple point is that I do believe that y’all are discounting out of hand too many possibilities/variables.
As to the MIT research; Michael, have you actually read those materials? It seems to me you haven’t. “Statistically significant” is “statistically significant.” Now, that could just as easily at this point be a result of the research method rather, or it could be a genuine effect that requires research. As a possibility, it is in fact consistent with many models of physics. But your reaction is plainly demonstrative of an oppositional confirmation bias. Once again I have to point out that I did NOT state that this information (or sub-topic) was even *science*. Meaning that it is an “unknown” — which you are treating as a “known”.
I don’t have the time at the moment for the lunar effect, but I *DO* know that it has impact even in inner cities and in cloudy weather. To state that this comes from increased lumencount is just plain silly.
As to standard Cartesian dualism — you are now attempting to limit the argument from ‘dualism in general’ to “Cartesian dualism” and then refute my statement based on the new category. That doesn’t fly. I spoke only on *dualism* as a whole — meaning all forms of thought which imply that the mind is in some way shape or form separate from the body, in a limited OR absolute manner. You refuted my statement by taking a select portion of that category. It’s faulty logic.
April 19th, 2007 - 22:33
standard scientific measures of statistical significance are deeply flawed. “Statistically Significant” != “basis for attributing a Bayesian Posterior distinguishable from n where n = the lowest level of credence that can be subjectively granted”
April 20th, 2007 - 04:04
Be careful what you wish for. If and when the public becomes aware of the concept of the Singularity many of them would probably freak out. I’ve little doubt that if major news carriers did a piece on the Singularity it’d be a yellow journalism scare piece. I think we can do without that at this stage.
Anyone with access to the internet and some curiousity in the future can’t help but stumble across the concept of the Singularity. At the moment perhaps that’s for the best.
April 20th, 2007 - 08:14
Regarding lunar activity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed
— Only documents that violence is highest during full-moon periods.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/moon.html
— has links to studies showing things going both ways.
http://www.policeops.com/full-moon-ion-effect.htm
— Something towards an explanation of the ionic effect I was referencing. Can’t speak to its veracity but it IS interesting that it’s a police website.
http://www.superforce.com/Press-Releases/press-release-American-Election-Results.htm
— Another article on the “ionic effect.”
April 20th, 2007 - 08:42
Those last two links are complete pseudoscientific jokes. Why do you read websites like this?
From the superforce site:
“Coming Soon: Pro Golfers, Hockey, Football, Baseball, Basketball players, NASCAR Drivers, Triple Crown Horses…
as they relate to the Surface Ion Ratio Forecastâ„¢ We will start off with a limited amount of athletes from each sport. “
April 20th, 2007 - 09:41
Michael, it’s called suspension of bias. *s*
April 20th, 2007 - 20:22
Sound’s like that’s not all you suspended.
http://skepdic.com/fullmoon.html
(w/ links out}
And the eminently linkable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect
If nothing else, remember: Ockham died for your sins.
April 21st, 2007 - 06:28
Jose, when talking about the Singularity – is it *possible* for even the worst piece of yellow journalism scare pieces to make the Singularity sound more threatening than it actually is? I mean, we’re talking about an event that seems to have a very high probability of ending mankind’s existence?
April 21st, 2007 - 14:06
agreed kaj, I’d take a scare over continued apathy
anyday
April 21st, 2007 - 21:41
Chris Peterson — Bias is bias. Sorry to upset yours. :) That first link is one that was written from a negative bias. This is demonstrated by the fact that it uses a study which indicates a *decrease* in admissions into psychiatric wards as evidence *AGAINST* a lunar effect. This discounts it as a serious source.
The second link, Wikipedia, is designed in a non-conclusive manner.
And while the invocation of Occam’s Razor is appropriate, it is also equally applicable in both directions.
April 21st, 2007 - 22:06
As for the belief that there is some contradiction between traditional religion and AI, the following quote from the SF novel Past Master by R. A. Lafferty might be of interest:
April 22nd, 2007 - 12:44
Thanks for the quote. But let me know when you find a Christian that believes in true AI.
April 22nd, 2007 - 18:56
I’m not sure of their position on AI, but there is a Mormon Transhumanist Association: http://transfigurism.org/
April 22nd, 2007 - 18:58
Kaj, the threat is that scaring people about the Singularity will lead to a reaction like banning AI research, which would indeed make things worse. See here: http://yudkowsky.net/sing/plan.html#vision_opposition
April 23rd, 2007 - 09:57
Micahel, to provide support for Nick, I self-identify as both Mormon (as you know) and Christian, and think it accurate to claim that I believe in true AI — although I don’t think any intelligence organized by humans will be any more or less artificial than the intelligence organized by biological evolution. Additionally, I know many other members of the Mormon Transhumanist Association would claim to believe in true AI.
April 23rd, 2007 - 10:04
Thanks Lincoln. I should have said “find me a Christian outside of the MTA that believes in true AI”. Seriously, you guys are quite unusual. But due to the popularity of movies such as the Matrix, I suppose it makes sense that some number of Christians believe in the possibility. I just haven’t met any in person, or seen their writings, except (the sole exception I can think of) you progressive transhumanist Mormons.
Note that I am a “militant atheist” in the Dawkinsian sense, but my love of transhumanism overrides my distaste for religion, thus I am inclined to support transhumanists of any sort whether they are religious or not. The quality of your thought and writing doesn’t hurt either.
I also think that Mormons realize the stupidity of the religious mainstream, and I admire the Mormons’ story of escaping religious persecution in the United States.
April 23rd, 2007 - 19:49
“As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
-Lorenzo Snow, former President of the LDS church.
Mormons being transhumanists? It doesn’t surprise me.
Above all else, I think the thinking in the above quote is what a lot Christians don’t like about Mormonism. As an atheist transhumanist, I wonder how people will adapt their religions to transhumanism. Maybe traditional Christian thought will become more like Mormonism
April 23rd, 2007 - 19:56
” As a result of this, I suggest that those who wish to spread acceptance of the Singularity meme focus on the other philosophical flaw I mentioned – the human superiority complex.”
Michael, in my opinion, we should do exactly the opposite if we wish to spread the acceptance of singularity, and technological progress. We should embrace our human superiority complex and be proud of it. We are at this point of technology because of us humans, we will achieve singularity again because of us, not despite of or regardless of us. Thus, humans are/will be the reasons IF we decide to create machines that are more intelligent then we are.
I think people would be less scared if they believe in human superiority, that if we are smart enough to create intelligent machines, surely we are smart enough to enhance our capabilities to be smarter than the intelligent machines. Unfortunately, the fallacy of Ray and others who believe in mostly non-biological singularity is that, biological systems are far more superior, efficient, flexible and complex than machines can ever hope to become.
The problem is that we haven’t yet figured out how to reprogram and expand our biological code. Ironically, it seems that those who feel there is nothing technology can not solve also feel hopeless since the machine computation power is doubling every 18 months while we are static therefore it must be inevitable that they will become superior and our masters. This view in my opinion should be wrong, because we really will use the immense computation power of the AI to figure out how we can advance our own biological capabilities…as long as we still maintain our human superiority complex :)
April 23rd, 2007 - 20:01
Forgot to mention that you always write greatly insightful articles that I very much enjoy reading and thinking about :)
April 25th, 2007 - 00:32
IanG- I had all of a few minutes curiosity to update my beliefs on the subject, so I quickly gathered and judged sources by their language & citations, looking for consistent & frugal claims across those sources, and decided that that will do, given its limited interest and value.
Having visited the links you posted above, I question somewhat your ability to judge a source’s seriousness. :)
Regarding Ockham’s Razor, I’d say that it cuts in _one_ direction, toward parsimony. Not all hypotheses are equal before it’s anthropomorphized eyes.
Your misuse of ‘bias’ prompted this defense. Sorry for any adversarial tone. I _mean_ it. :)
April 25th, 2007 - 09:51
It’s a “C” not a “G”. lol
That being said; your statement that Occam’s Razor cuts toward parsimony demonstrates that I wasn’t using the term bias inappropriately. I’ll give an example; Occam’s Razor has been used to indicate that both there is, and must be; and that there is not, and could not be, “God-as-Creator.” To the believer, it is *simpler* to believe in the creator-deity. To the unbeliever, it is *simpler* to believe there is no creator-deity. Hence why invocation of the principle isn’t useful in this setting.
Which is simpler? That the brain is complete in and of itself, or that it is affected by the external environment? Occam’s Razor here contradicts itself.
But the politeness is well-received, and returned. :)
April 25th, 2007 - 18:34
The misspelling was an attempt at a polite hint. :)
The razor’s usual form holds that, in explanation, terms should not be multiplied unnecessarily. ‘The Christian God’ is a pretty large and unjustified assumption with arguably no predictive power, regardless of Ockham’s own penchant for scripture-as-evidence (Wikipedia had some comments on this).
Your third paragraph sets up a false dichotomy. Brain structure can be modeled statically, though models of function necessarily include the possibility of external stimuli. For each purpose, the razor cuts toward parsimony. It can, of course, cut away any degree of usefulness, as in the example, ‘stuff works’. I think Eli covers this in his Technical Explanation.
http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/technical.html
April 26th, 2007 - 09:57
Chris — I was *AWARE* that it was a false dichotomy. That was precisely why I said Occam’s Razor is inapplicable to the topic-at-hand.
Furthermore, I didn’t reference “The Christian God”. I referenced “God-as-Creator.” The two are rather radically different concepts. Equally plausible (0% is a level of plausibility too) in my mind, but that’s another story.
August 24th, 2008 - 17:50
3vGood idea.1f I compleatly agree with last post. isz
ламинат купить 6g
August 24th, 2008 - 18:35
8qGood idea.7q I compleatly agree with last post. jmh
паркет 9u
August 24th, 2008 - 22:31
7dGood idea.4m I compleatly disagree with last post . goh
Ð¿Ð°Ñ€ÐºÐµÑ‚Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð¾Ñка 5f
August 25th, 2008 - 00:05
0iGood idea.9m I compleatly disagree with last post . ikx
ламинат купить 7a
January 10th, 2012 - 18:18
Good topic. I agree on the whole but find your reasoning weak. I really don’t see what religion even as to do with this debate, seriously. I’m not religious but I’m not atheist either and I don’t see why you can’t think that affirmation 1 is true while still believing in god.