Erfeyah

• ErfeyahJan 10, 2018, 8:54 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Eugen’s comment on: Are these ar­gu­ments valid?

  Yes I think you and AndHisHorse are right on your criticism of [2].

  I also really loved the past-directed future-directed distinction you are making! It kind of corners me towards making a teleological argument as a response, which I have to support against the evolutionary evidence of a past-directed purpose! There is another answer I can attempt that is based on the pragmatic view of truth but phew… I don’t think I am ready for that at the moment :)

  Thanks!

• ErfeyahJan 10, 2018, 8:39 PM

  3 points

  in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Are these ar­gu­ments valid?

  With all due respect, active engagement and feedback is a great way to learn in addition to reading the sequences.

  Hazard above has pointed me to specific articles that I can apply directly to the analysis of arguments that I relate to, accelerating my learning. If Hazard and others are willing to help and I display the correct attitude towards learning I can only think of two problems this may cause:

  • You feel that posts such as this one are claiming your attention and you would prefer to avoid them completely.

  • You feel that they are cluttering the site itself.

  These are valid concerns but I would suggest that if your concerns are shared by a majority of users the problem can be adressed at the level of site design.

  I am also curious if you could specify exactly what you mean with the phrase “the same basic epistemological questions” in relation to this post.

• ErfeyahJan 10, 2018, 6:59 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Are these ar­gu­ments valid?

  The validity of a logical argument can be judged independantly of whether it is sound. I think for [2] this seems quite difficult as per AndHisHorse’s comment. Could you elaborate on why this is the case for [1] as well? It seems to me that the logic can be abstracted quite easily.

• ErfeyahJan 10, 2018, 6:53 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: AndHisHorse’s comment on: Are these ar­gu­ments valid?

  Thank you for your comment.

  I too think that the logic of [1] is valid. I am going to ask Dagon on the other comment why he thinks that it is not even near a logical structure. As for [2] I was interested in finding out whether, in the case where we agree on the terms, the conclusion follows from the premise. But I think you are right; it is probably impossible to judge this on the abstract.

  In terms of the argument itself It is kind of like Pascals Wager with the difference of framing it as a moral duty towards ‘meaning’ itself (since if meaning exists it—in my formulation—grounds the moral duty) instead of self interest as in Pascal’s Wager.

  P.S: Interesting to see downvotes for a question that invites criticism… If you down voted the post yourself any constructive feedback of the reason why would be appreciated :)

Are these ar­gu­ments valid?

• ErfeyahJan 9, 2018, 6:51 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: From Ra­tion­al­ity to Power in 3 Steps

  I believe your logic is sound. A bare bones example of using people instrumentally could be needing to move a stone for building something. Or maybe, if the goal is to kill the people in question, they can be manipulated into dying under the rock that they are themselves carrying...

  To me the idea of knowledge has a moral element as it does not only tell you how to do something but also what to do. Or maybe knowledge tells you ‘how’ and wisdom tells you ‘what’. It depends on how we are defining our terms. I like to use knowledge as containing both.

  So yes, you are right that in my sentence there is the implied assumption, which is also the foundation of my critique of this post, that Bound_up does not exercise knowledge but is simply gathering attention and inflating his/​hers self image by assuming superiority. In this light my statement is clumsily formulated as a supporting argument.

  Thanks!

• ErfeyahJan 8, 2018, 10:39 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: Said Achmiz’s comment on: Art: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Take?

  Haha, ok. I might have over romanticise my last sentence ;) let me be more specific (though even with these additions not really making justice to the depth of our subject):

  It is in the same manner, that when unknown musicians really perform on the street (taking into account time, place and audience), people (that are not distracted and have an accordingly developed aesthetic sense) are drawn towards the sound. [Example]

  It would also be interesting to check what role reputation (of the musician) instead of quality of performance played in your choice of example.

• ErfeyahJan 7, 2018, 9:14 PM

  1 point

  on: Art: A Ra­tion­al­ist’s Take?

  I will give you my perspective. You say:

  The reality in which we live is one wherein a painting can be authentic all the while being deemed nothing more than a “clumsy pastiche”, or worse yet, one where that “clumsy pastiche” can be deemed inauthentic on faulty logic or as a result of ulterior motives. This is something I’ve not gripped entirely but rather am still working on grasping better.

  I believe that the reason you are having trouble to grasp this is that you are talking about two different things. The one thing is art and the other is commerce. The reality is that art does not need authentication. It is experientially verified. The authentication factor is relevant only in the trading of certain works of art; or for historical, archelogical, sociological etc. reasons .

  It is interesting to see, for contrast, the way art functions (or used to at least) in certain non western contexts where it has not been commodified to such an extend. Traditionally in some places in the east, artists did not sign their work. First of all it was a gesture that they did not create for personal gain but for the betterment of humanity, but also a recognition that the artwork, if real, should be able to stand on its own without the need (and distortion) of reputation.

  It is in the same manner, that when unknown musicians really perform on the street, people are drawn as if mesmerised towards the sound. What they identify does not need authentication.

• ErfeyahJan 3, 2018, 4:31 PM

  1 point

  on: How I ac­ci­den­tally dis­cov­ered the pill to en­light­en­ment but I wouldn’t recom­mend it.

  That was quite fun to read actually :) And reminded me that I have to sort out my non-existent exercise routine.

  As to its connection to enlightenment if enlightenment really exists.… I would personally recommend reading books from Idries Shah. Maybe his psychologically framed works first ‘Knowing how to Know’ and ‘Learning how to Learn’. If you are overly intellectual you are going to attempt rejecting them quickly. This is by design. The books play with over-intellectualisation and over-emotionality in an instrumental manner. The content is not always something to learn but something to observe yourself against. Read at least a few of the books in full, suspending judgment, to get a glimpse of what is really going on with your experiments.

  Good luck :)

• ErfeyahJan 1, 2018, 7:14 PM

  7 points

  on: From Ra­tion­al­ity to Power in 3 Steps

  I am wondering about a trend I see in at least a couple of your posts. Of course I might be completely off the mark here but I will tell you and maybe something interesting will come of it.

  It seems to me that a significant part of the posts are devoted to a kind of self affirming “I know something that other people don’t”. Now, it so happens that I have found myself in that kind of mentality many years ago and I needed a bit of a shock to start getting out of it. It seems to be that when a person really acquires knowledge they get on with applying the knowledge in the world instead of trying to inflate their self image through peer appraisal or other means. When the knowledge is not real or mature on the other hand, paradoxically, a very common behaviour is to try to teach!

  There are many parts in the posts that imply certainty about exceedingly complex things and also, in some cases, seem to disregard moral ramifications. Talking about “how to squeeze power out of them”, “A rationalist would see through the illusory web of words to the essence beyond”, “I found I couldn’t teach them what they needed to know”, “I had this dearth of power that needed resolving”, “It feels awkward trying to alter people’s concepts while acting like words have “true” meanings” etc.

  I am open to the possibility that you have found truth but I am not really sure that this and a couple of other posts do much more than stating confidence.

• ErfeyahDec 20, 2017, 2:22 PM

  4 points

  on: Mana

  After reading twice I am still unclear on what you mean by ‘mana’ but I want to keep an open mind.

  You write:

  I once tried to apply mana to get a rental car company to hold to a thing they said earlier over the phone which my plans were counting on. And accidentally got the low-level employee I was applying mana to to offer me a 6-hour car ride in her own car.

  Could you explain in detail exactly what is happening in your mind (to the best of your introspective abilities) when you ‘apply mana’. Is this ‘application’ mediated by language? If yes is the language in your head or verbalised to the other person? Is it just attention? intention? etc.

• ErfeyahDec 12, 2017, 9:08 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Zane Scheepers’s comment on: The list

  Ok, I will tell you my thought process so that maybe it can be of help in understanding why people have been downvoting you. Obviously, this is just my perspective and I am direcly sharing my thoughts without the usual niceties filter in the hope that I can be of help.

  So, firstly this is the only post I have read of yours. I expressed in my first comment why I think is not developed. During our brief exchange we kind of changed the subject of discussion to the idea of conscious will. I suggested a book. You jumped on the book (and Maslows hierarchy) as if it is supporting your argument. But I just suggested the book so I would assume you haven’t read it yet. In addition the arguments in the book (which I have read twice), though fascinating, seem to have absolutely no relation to your idea of a ‘list’ that this thread is about. Same goes for Maslows pyramid.

  So my personal judgement is that you are at the stage that you need to study existing knowledge and also the art of developing coherent ideas. Of course play around with new ideas but in the same way you can not create a musical piece before you understand the foundations of music, you can not generate coherent hypothesis before you understand in depth the rules of logic and the current state of your subject matter. Practice humility. Assume you don’t really understand anything about human nature yet and concentrate on learning from others. Although the downvotes seem to be out of spite I don’t believe many people in the LW community tend to do that. I think they are down voting your argument itself as well as your approach to ideas in general because it does not meet the community standards. Think of it as honest feedback.

  I hope this was helpful and not perceived as patronising.

• ErfeyahDec 12, 2017, 6:54 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Zane Scheepers’s comment on: The list

  Are you talking about Wegner’s book when you say that someone else had the same idea?

• ErfeyahDec 11, 2017, 11:45 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: Zane Scheepers’s comment on: The list

  Sure, but I am not sure how that relates to the ‘list’ idea. In any case, I believe it is quite evident that conscious and subconscious levels are constantly interacting with each other so it is not a case of all or nothing. If you are interested in the (not yet resolved) question of their interaction and the source of action in general the book “The Illusion of Conscious Will” by Daniel Wegner examines whta you refered to as the ‘post facto’ perspective in depth (providing experimental data). A fascinating book!

• ErfeyahDec 11, 2017, 6:51 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Zane Scheepers’s comment on: The list

  I think you are confusing high and low level processes. The brain is comprised of many subsystems developed through the evolutionary proccess. The circuits that allow us, for instance, to avoid sudden motions are much lower (brain stem, amygdala etc.) than the neocortex which is the sit of higher level proccesses such as rational assesment. These circuits are activated before the signal is proccessed by the higher levels but not because they have a list. They are just optimised for certain very general situations.

• ErfeyahDec 11, 2017, 1:04 PM

  5 points

  on: The list

  Some, hopefully, constructive criticism. I don’t feel you have developed your idea to the point where it can be argued for or against. You are talking about the nature of the human mind and not of an implementation for A.I so even your assumption that the brain uses data structures akin to the ones found in computers is unfounded. If you are using it more as a metaphor then I am not sure it is a useful one. Why is there a static list and not an action generated anew at the moment of decision? It is more likely (and more in line with current neuroscientific evidence) that the mind is akin to an always online system that can generate internal and external responses on the fly.

• ErfeyahOct 17, 2017, 8:25 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Open thread, Oc­to­ber 2 - Oc­to­ber 8, 2017

  As per the electron thing, there’s a level where there is symbolic manipulation and a level where there isn’t. I don’t understand why it’s symbolic manipulation for electronics but not for neurons. At the right abstraction level, neurons too manipulate symbols.

  It is not the symbols that are the problem. It is that the semantic content of the symbol used in a digital computer is observer relative. The circuits depend on someone understanding their meaning. The meaning provided by the human engineer that, since he possesses the semantic content, understands the method of implementation and the calculation results at each level of abstraction. This is clearly not the case in the human brain in which the symbols arise in a manner that allows for intrinsic semantic content.

• ErfeyahOct 6, 2017, 7:55 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: Open thread, Oc­to­ber 2 - Oc­to­ber 8, 2017

  I think people get too hung up on computers as being mechanistic. People usually think of symbol manipulation in terms of easy-to-imagine language-like models, but then try to generalize their intuitions to computation in general, which can be unimaginably complicated.

  The working of a computer is not unimaginably complicated. Its basis is quite straightforward really. As I said in my answer to MrMind below “As Searle points out the meaning of zeros, ones, logic gates etc. is observer relative in the same way money (not the paper, the meaning) is observer relative and thus ontologically subjective. The electrons are indeed ontologically objective but that is not true regarding the syntactic structures of which they are elements in a computer. Watch this video of Searle explaining this (from 9:12).”.

  Talking about “consciousness” is presumed to be a consequence of our experience with consciousness. And the things we have experience with that we can label “consciousness” are introspective phenomena, physically realized as patterns of neurons firing, that have exact analogies in the simulation.

  In our debate I am holding the position that there can not be a simulation of consciousness using the current architectural basis of a computer. Searle has provided a logical argument. In my quotes above I show that the state of neuroscience does not point towards a purely digital brain. What is your evidence?

• ErfeyahOct 6, 2017, 7:44 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Open thread, Oc­to­ber 2 - Oc­to­ber 8, 2017

  Well, that would run counter to the Church-Turing thesis. Either the brain is capable of doing things that would require infinite resources for a computer to perform, or the power of the brain and the computer is the same.

  Am I right to think that this statement is based on the assumption that the brain (and all computation machines) have been proven to have Turing machine equivalents based on the Church-Turing thesis? If that is the case I would refer you to this article’s section Misunderstandings of the Thesis. If I have understood wrong I would be grateful if you could offer some more details on your point.

  Indeed, not even computers are based on symbolic manipulation: at the deepest level, it’s all electrons flowing back and forth.

  We can demonstrate the erroneous logic of this statement by saying something like: ”Indeed, not even language is based on symbolic manipulation: at the deepest level, it’s all sound waves pushing air particles back and forth”.

  As Searle points out the meaning of zeros, ones, logic gates etc. is observer relative in the same way money (not the paper, the meaning) is observer relative and thus ontologically subjective. The electrons are indeed ontologically objective but that is not true regarding the syntactic structures of which they are elements in a computer. Watch this video of Searle explaining this (from 9:12).

• ErfeyahOct 5, 2017, 7:09 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: Open thread, Oc­to­ber 2 - Oc­to­ber 8, 2017

  Hmm.. I do not think that is what I mean, no. I lean towards agreeing with Searle’s conclusion but I am examining my thought process for errors.

  Searle’s argument is not that consciousness is not created in the brain. It is that it is not based on syntactic symbol manipulation in the way a computer is and for that reason it is not going to be simulated by a computer with our current architecture (binary, logic gates etc.) as the AI community thought (and thinks). He does not deny that we might discover the architecture of the brain in the future. All he does is demonstrate through analogy how syntactic operations work.

  In the Chinese gym rebuttal the issues is not really addressed. There is no denial by Searle that the brain is a system, with sub components, through which structure, consciousness emerges. That is a different discussion. He is arguing that the system must be doing something, different or in addition to, syntactic symbol manipulation.

  Since the neuroscience does not support the digital information processing view where is the certainty of the community coming from? Am I missing something fundamental here?