“You can’t design a bridge without actually knowing the tensile strength of steel and the compressive strength of concrete, these facts are not open to interpretation. Designing a society is no different [..]”
Distinguish necessity and sufficiency. There may be some objective truths that can be leveraged for social engineering, but it’s obvious that designing a society also involves solving questions outside the hard sciences, going from social psychology to ethics. You’re begging an enormous question there.
″ it’s obvious that designing a society also involves solving questions outside the hard sciences”
these questions should not be outside the hard sciences, that’s the point Alfred Korzybski was making all the way back in 1921. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be trying to treat ethics and psychology like hard sciences.
Unless there is. There are many theoretical arguments for why psychology and ethics cant be solved by the hard sciences, and there is a dearth or practical evidence that they can.
Simply stating such a controversial claim isn’t proof, and stating on Korzybski’s authority isn’t proof either.
I can see the basis of arguments that ethics could not be solved with hard science, I disagree with them but they at least have some basis. But psychology? Really? Are human beings not part of reality? Are human brains just magical boxes beyond our mortal comprehension? The hard problems of consciousness will be solved eventually. Cognitive neuroscience is making strong strides. Once we have a map of the connectome we’ll be well on our way to really understanding how brains work. Psychology should absolutely be treated as a hard science.
Once we have a map of the connectome we’ll be well on our way to really understanding how brains work. Psychology should absolutely be treated as a hard science.
Now? When we the promissory note has not been cashed?
In any case, that is not the main problem. The main problem is that “X is a real thing in reality” doesn’t in any way guarantee that X is comprehensible to some entity Y. Slugs and stars are both real, but slugs can’t understand stars. In fact, they can’t understand slugs. We don’t know whether we are smart enough to understand ourselves.
And cognitive limitations aren’t the only problem. Epistemology has inherent problems, such as the problem of unfounded foundations, which can’t be solved by throwing Compute at them.
Slugs and stars are both real, but slugs can’t understand stars. In fact, they can’t understand slugs
Dyson’s Law of Artificial Intelligence
”Anything simple enough to be understandable will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently, while anything complicated enough to behave intelligently will not be simple enough to understand.”
“You can’t design a bridge without actually knowing the tensile strength of steel and the compressive strength of concrete, these facts are not open to interpretation. Designing a society is no different [..]”
Distinguish necessity and sufficiency. There may be some objective truths that can be leveraged for social engineering, but it’s obvious that designing a society also involves solving questions outside the hard sciences, going from social psychology to ethics. You’re begging an enormous question there.
″ it’s obvious that designing a society also involves solving questions outside the hard sciences”
these questions should not be outside the hard sciences, that’s the point Alfred Korzybski was making all the way back in 1921. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be trying to treat ethics and psychology like hard sciences.
Unless there is. There are many theoretical arguments for why psychology and ethics cant be solved by the hard sciences, and there is a dearth or practical evidence that they can.
Simply stating such a controversial claim isn’t proof, and stating on Korzybski’s authority isn’t proof either.
I can see the basis of arguments that ethics could not be solved with hard science, I disagree with them but they at least have some basis. But psychology? Really? Are human beings not part of reality? Are human brains just magical boxes beyond our mortal comprehension? The hard problems of consciousness will be solved eventually. Cognitive neuroscience is making strong strides. Once we have a map of the connectome we’ll be well on our way to really understanding how brains work. Psychology should absolutely be treated as a hard science.
Now? When we the promissory note has not been cashed?
In any case, that is not the main problem. The main problem is that “X is a real thing in reality” doesn’t in any way guarantee that X is comprehensible to some entity Y. Slugs and stars are both real, but slugs can’t understand stars. In fact, they can’t understand slugs. We don’t know whether we are smart enough to understand ourselves.
And cognitive limitations aren’t the only problem. Epistemology has inherent problems, such as the problem of unfounded foundations, which can’t be solved by throwing Compute at them.
Dyson’s Law of Artificial Intelligence
”Anything simple enough to be understandable will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently, while anything complicated enough to behave intelligently will not be simple enough to understand.”