Kriminal99

Occam's Razor, Ideas extracted from studying Coherentism in epistemology etc. : One should fail to differentiate between different belief sets or labeling schemes which use the same set of observations. It isn't possible to limit what you are working with to just the observations themselves because you need a way to reference those observations as well, but if you fail to differentiate between them you will be assured to use the least amount of effort in processing the observations. You will also be able to jump back and forth between labeling schemes and belief sets that contain the same observations, thus allowing you to put any argument in terms of a person's own set of beliefs and/or labeling scheme. Anyone who understands this and what they are talking about would eventually be able to put any of their arguments in terms that you can understand. Though if the argument is exceedingly complicated, there may be many steps involved. Arguments that cannot be falsified are a direct violation of this principal and should simply be ignored (rather than argued against). Limits of Induction, Global skepticism, Fundamental assumptions of probability theory: There is absolutely no reason why anything which is usually true should continue to be so. It just usually turns out that way. Therefore, any indication that a situation might be different this time, and that previous assumptions might fail, must be investigated. A couple of examples of how to apply this reasoning: Any law or truth that appears to be universal does not apply to things where we cannot observe the properties that served as the premises in deducing that universal law (c may not apply to the realm of particles too small to observe). An intelligent being who disagrees with you on a certain subject has some reasoning or experience driving their disagreement. If you don't understand what that is, or it might be something different than what you think, then you have no reason to believe that you are right and they are wrong.

The way to generalize patterns from the data is all the human brain is. The different sections of the brain are just the end result after being given certain inputs over multiple generations. It didn't take any time to find either. It's modeled after a simplistic proxy for survival that is very easy to mechanically realize. What I am essentially saying is that the two approaches are really the same thing. The hierarchies Chomsky is trying to create can actually be generated using statistical methods.

Understanding is not irrelevant in Norvig's approach because of the problem of overfit to data. Without an accurate means of generalizing from patterns in the data, you are limited in how you can apply that knowledge to data outside of the range. You could build an enormous database of knowledge and just look everything up, but an AI with a human like ability to generalize wouldn't need anywhere near the same amount of storage space or processing power. Such a program would use methods of generalization specifically because they were successful in associating the most amount of information, and could do it without storing every little piece of information. Example: You ask a person to classify photos of rooms as classrooms or non classrooms. A program that looks for chalkboards at the front of the room misses ones that have white boards, smart boards, or projector screens. A program that tries to look for any member of the set of all of these things takes a lot of work to put in this a priori knowledge, and requires constant updates because someone forgot a new communication medium or a new one was invented. A human like program would generate a concept of "communication medium", not just by using a set of all known examples but by another process and would need much less stored information to achieve the same effect. This generation is automatic after following some relatively simple hard programming. Mapping this program to a serial computer would require some corner cutting to bypass the "content addressable memory" properties of physical neural nets and the computational complexity they save. I guess my point is, in the end all 3 of these methods get to the same place when you just add enough information and understanding to the system to the point where nobody can tell the difference which one. But a real strong AI would be so much more flexible, generate it's own knowledge, and require less maintenance

Not if we can't identify people who have knowledge.

For one we went wrong by not stamping people's IQ's on their forehead. Second we need to identify what it is that causes certain people to amass much more knowledge for the same level of IQ, and put those people in charge of everything. I know the solution to every problem in law, economics, government and just about anything else you put in front of me. I can mathematically prove that these solutions are correct, and convince anyone who doesn't use debate fallacies or other forms of passive aggressiveness that my solutions are correct. But when I try to explain them to anyone or do anything about it, every idiot thinks they are on equal ground with me and that since they don't know everything I don't either. They decide this means they don't even have to listen to people like me. In the US especially, there is mass denial on the subject of intelligence. When we don't pretend that IQ doesn't matter at all, we are making up fake measures like EQ to justify why people with lower IQs might be able to compete at the same level. The end result of this is that incapable people are chosen to be arbitrators of knowledge for the general populace. People who are genetically inferior, and lack the reasoning skills to ever figure out anything, solve anything, or introduce genuinely novel knowledge. It's in government, it's in academia, it's everywhere. The most effective form of government is benevolent dictatorship. You want to check and balance that? Easy. Allow the rest of the government the ability to unanimously decide to assassinate the dictator.

Well because the person who created it would have to know EXACTLY what they were doing. Though I used to scoff at the idea, it is possible to run an assembly line of known algorithmic techniques to create the same effect as human intelligence. But no one is going to do that just by pure random chance. The thing that is lacking is the correct understanding of what intelligence really is. What I have done is to create a mathematical problem statement outlining human intelligence, and then create a solution that mimics the statistical reasoning of the human brain. A more direct emulation would require specialized hardware, but with a theoretical understanding of the problem, statistics and computational theory you can reduce it to a problem that can be run on serial processors.

I already have it. I think the danger is more of the form that someone will intentionally create one that does bad... With the understanding brought by the ability to program it, psychological manipulation would be fairly easy and mental states could be monitored. They would have no hunger or mating instincts, which would reduce the chance of a lot of psychotic human behavior naturally developing. The main problem would be based on them having outputs and learning to manipulate them to get attention. This can be avoided (if desirable) by preventing them from having any outputs, or limiting their outputs. You could read their knowledge base without their consent, or have them only interact through visual/auditory output. In any case, there are ways to prevent how much trouble it could do. For instance, physical keys might proliferate on computing devices (machines requiring mechanical input can only be hacked by physical beings). That is why you always see nuke computers requiring keys. This creates barriers that would prevent like a factory from being hacked and forced to create robots. Full AI in an Asimo or something probably isn't the best idea. You can early condition it to have human morality, but in the end it will develop the attitude of just taking what it wants just like any human would with greater abilities. However any takeover attempt would still require physical assaults that could be defended against, if the key system was set up. Dual minds are theoretically possible, but again the same problem about any being with superior abilities experience moral decay. Honestly, if I could hack a bunch of computers and get someone who wronged me fired, steal a million dollars, ghost myself into an army of robots and take over the government so I could run it better, etc etc without ever getting caught or stopped... I would do it in a heartbeat. Personally I don't think I would ever willingly kill someone however, and compassion is compulsory for a strong AI as well. I believe it is possible to manipulate the parameters of the AI to make sure that it would never kill a human as well. You could make it so it would never do anything to make a human angry at it, but that would handicap it. People get angry all the time for stupid reasons.

An irrelevant factual statement, that diverted attention from the argument... The person need not say "therefore you are incorrect". The fact that he said it in response implies that it is relevant to the argument, when it is not.

I look at fallacies from the point of view of implied rules of debate. I believe that for something like a logical fallacy to have meaning, it must have a driving context. So from that point of view, the problem is that person B opened their mouth despite their ignorance. Well not really that they opened their mouth, but that they assert something intended to be perceived as participation in the debate. This part of it is along the lines of Red Herring fallacy. Of course, the original Appeal to Authority fallacy was also a type of Red Herring, and many fallacies overlap... The scaling down of the difficulty in terms of reasoning skills required was to allow other people to share in the perception that people with superior reasoning skills often have in dealing with self styled experts and their followers.

Give it up. There is no purpose of life that can be divined from intelligence, which means that the only purpose of life is live itself. The immense revulsion that people feel for the idea that you are speaking about is inseparable from those feelings and emotions that give life meaning and will never go away. And consent is meaningless for a kid.

No, that is not correct. It is entirely possible to experience a feeling of loss that no one understands the things that you do while still being 100% certain of your ideas. Human beings are social by nature, but through special conditioning people like me become far more aware of our surroundings as part of a survival instinct prior to worrying about fitting in or getting attention from other people. We still then care somewhat about social interaction. For most people, it is ok if one person does not understand their idea, as long as someone else does. I have never met anyone that understands a significant fraction of the things I do. Also, if for some reason you are forced into a social circle, you also want those particular people to understand your ideas. But besides this as part of my conditioning, I do not allow myself to be content with having influence over small niche groups. A lack of desire to overemphasize your niche group is part of the conditioning that makes someone infinitely more capable in the search for knowledge.

What if someone filed a slander suit alleging that a university professor assigned a defamatory grade and that he was not qualified to assign any grade due to lack of expertise in the area of intelligence and education itself? The US supreme court fails to differentiate between opinion and fact, and a person making a poorly reasoned assessment of someone else cannot hide behind the claim it is opinion. You could argue that the professor was too stupid to accurately judge your ideas and/or lacked the awareness of the significance of intelligence that might have allowed him to be more careful in how he judged the ideas of others. Furthermore you could argue that this is characteristic of University professors in general given that there is no strict intelligence requirement or requirement for background in education or intelligence. The very idea that someone can accurately evaluate your claims based solely on their participation of a social structure is wrong. Their expertise cannot be said to be of any claims that they disagree with, by virtue of the fact they disagree with them. Only the person who makes the claims can accurately concede that they are wrong, even if motivated by arguments by a professor. Otherwise the professor may be simply misinterpreting, and numerous studies have indicated that this may be more likely to occur if there is an intelligence differential regardless of social designations of expertise. Also note that the assignment of grades was recently denied protection under the first amendment and it was argued that University departments could require grade changing for political reasons (like to stop a professor who flunks everyone).

I'll agree that scientists make science science, if only because words and phrases like science, scientific method, etc have become more buzzwords than philosophically sound paradigms. Without a concrete formulation of doubt like one that doctor dick has tried to outline scientists at worst can not be guaranteed to be more than just slightly less idiotic idiots. Though they relate their superior understanding to some level of self-skepticism and will to validate beliefs "empirically" over the average person, they can only describe this attribute by pointing to someone that seemingly does it less than them... as evidenced by a falsifiable belief. There are people who have an innate understanding of what this skepticism truly is and how it should be applied, those people with profound deductive reasoning skills, who are then challenged by "scientists" projecting their insecurities regarding accidentally making falsifiable claims. Then these "scientists" go on to violate the true principals of skepticism by ignoring potential sources of sampling bias in their experiments, favoring social conventions over potential sources of knowledge, and making poorly reasoned conclusions from experimental data...

That is a defense to global skepticism, but not to less than global skepticism. What if most people are real, but one of them is a robot? Thus, we cannot simply define people that we perceive to be external conscious entities, but rather must limit our claims to the fact that we perceive them. This claim is true both in the case of the robot and the real person. Well, you used the example of color blindness at one point in your post. Since color blindness isn't a one to one mapping to normal vision, situations exist where people could identify a deficiency that one person had even though most of the time they would perceive the same things. Women always bug me about not matching outfits. In the case of the inverted spectrum argument though, what I should say is if we have a way to tell then it matters. You know, if we could examine how consciousness is realized to determine a different reaction to the same wavelength in two different people. Before that it doesn't matter. After that, we know to separate the "raw feel" of a color from the wavelength. You have assigned objects a an objective existence even though the only evidence of this a person can ever have is our perception of these objects. But these perceptions are ambiguous. If we perceive a Saloon, then you have reasoned that a Saloon actually exists apart from the people perceiving it. But then when we enter it to find it is only a front, what happened to the external object Saloon that we were just perceiving? It suddenly morphs into an external objective piece of cardboard from an external objective actual Saloon. So, anticipating the typical response "It was always a piece of cardboard", the response is, what if every object we have perceived was an illusion? You cannot use the "this reality" defense because in this reality you have been alerted to the fact that perceiving something doesn't guarantee the existence of an external object. Thus you should separate the idea of perceiving from the idea of external object.

I understand your argument, but disagree in the manner you addressed in the last paragraph. That is, how do you know the other person observing the same thing as you is real when that other person is also just something you are perceiving? Ah, the inverted spectrum argument. The answer is that when you find out that the two people are experiencing different reactions to the colors, then it matters. Yes, this IS the only reality we have to work with. Within this reality exists the possibility of perceptions that can fail without all of reality failing. You walk into a ghost town, only to find it is actually a movie set with false fronts. By your reasoning, when this happens an object that previously existed suddenly ceased to exist or was instantly replaced with a smaller one, which objects cannot do. A logical contradiction. By my reasoning, there is no such contradiction. You defined two things that almost always occur at the same time as one thing. Because of my awareness of perspective and illusions, I separated the two. These issues must be fully understood to tackle topics in modern physics.

PS Polymath, a Hopfield net is a type of artificial neural network, and as I described involve training a neural net's weights so that they only light up for certain inputs. I am not sure why you attempted to introduce me to the very thing I just described in the same post you quoted.

But the issue is perspective, an issue which you keep dodging. All our knowledge comes from a process of observation, yet you keep presuming objective knowledge of external objects' existences. Perhaps you have some subspace connection with the universe that everyone else lacks that allows you to define external objects, but the left of us are left to work a process on subjective observations that ultimately cannot be proven to be of anything real. What if they are just projections being fed to us somehow of something that isn't there? Once you understand this possibility, then the definition of object becomes less meaningful. Perhaps we should limit definitions to the context in which the thing being referred to is presented. This is the only way to avoid issues where we are surprised by additional information. In this case, an object is merely the result of a process on subjective observations.

I saw two different questions. One was about equal pay, the other about equal pay for equal work. I am not sure they are not already receiving equal pay for equal work. There is no question that there are a lot of differences between women and men. I think that if a job is all about social interaction, then women are probably more suited for the job. However I think that such jobs are a luxury to begin with. I think that when it comes to solving objective real world problems that men are better suited, and doing this is really where money is actually earned to begin with, before it is distributed among people who offer purely social services. It used to be recognized that women tended to be less proficient in (or perhaps fond of) mathematics for instance. However there are always naive egalitarians that try and bias research into areas like this. First there were claims that the difference was due to cultural gender roles. They create a huge drive to help women in this area to "close the gap", perhaps resulting in women receiving far better instruction than men when the gap may be genetic all along. Then when the gap gets small enough they claim it is no longer statistically significant. If the difference was partly genetic, then the increased instruction for young women would not solve the problem, it would just delay it. Without the social motivators to pursue objective understanding of their environment after school, they would focus on more social issues. Meanwhile men pursue such objective understanding to be better at solving real world problems, and the "closed gap" is just an illusion. Of course my personal experience is not a representative sample, but keep in mind there are statistical methods that can be used to extract the most amount of information from the least amount of experiences. I have seen many examples of women in "leadership" roles that did not have the competency or drive to objectively solve issues, but rather tended to "go with the flow" and at most used their position to empower the existing consensus on issues. I think of a leader as more of a person that always has the best solutions, and teaches others how to understand them, implement them, and come up with good solutions of their own. On the other hand, I have met few such people period.. so the fact that they were all men isn't as significant as it would be otherwise. I think that if women do begin to receive higher pay and the U.S. economy continues it's downward spiral, that the two things would be heavily related - a move away from meritocratic economy into one where bailed out big businesses trade in efficiency for coddling and people mongering skills.

Create a market for procreation. You temporarily sterilize people, then make them pay to create children. Part of the funds will be a sort of mandatory savings to take care of the child, and part of it may just be a tax to support early education and health care etc. Having children will eventually be perceived as more of a luxury, and people who are successful may have more. People who struggle to make ends meet will not create a lineage of people with the same problems. Pretty simple extension of the solution to pollution control. The biggest issue would of course be public perception, but this is an issue of communication. In the U.S. people are generally ignorant of the real problems being faced and their causes. Until something changes about how we receive information on these subjects, the voters will always have a superficial understanding of politics and vote accordingly. Once they begin to understand the problems being faced and the depth of these issues, they will be more in a position to make tough decisions along with the leaders. Until we breach that barrier, we will never solve any problems.

Racism is something bad only if and when people intentionally use less accurate racial profiles to predict behavior or usefulness and ignore more accurate indications of these things that are just as easy to obtain. Otherwise, correlating behaviors and traits to a group like race for the purpose of making predictions is just an integral part of human intelligence. So if you didn't hire a black person over a white person and didn't even look at their gpa's, education etc. then your choice would be stupid and wasteful because it's easy to get that information and they are better indicators of usefulness. But if for some reason you could not access any information other than race, then the statistics would mean by definition that hiring a black over a white would result in relative losses on average. (assuming random sampling from black and white population) I bring this up because, I really cannot think of a more ACCURATE means of predicting effectiveness than IQ. If it did become sort of basis for gauging people's effectiveness, the efficiency of everything would probably increase a huge amount. By lifelong consequences you seem to be implying that the student has an alternative. I actually know someone that felt like they were cheated in their education. They complain about the school staff that tried to hold them back and everything else, and I tried to help them make up for lost ground. I learned pretty quickly that there was a reason why that person was held back. This person would look at sequences of numbers and their brain would not recognize the patterns there, even though they knew the arithmetic behind the patterns. This made it impossible for them to learn something as simple as chains of equivalent fractions. This person is not quite "challenged" either. They would typically be referred to as having a "learning disability". IQ is not something that people naturally understand the existence and significance of - it takes a large amount of awareness of one's self and surroundings to truly understand it. It may not even be possible to gain this understanding without observing people on both extremes of the spectrum so the differences are obvious and then seeing how those limitations and abilities scale back to the middle. The choices are not easy to make for people who are actually responsible for making them (not just the silly teachers that implement them), but it may be between the student learning nothing because they are overwhelmed and learning a little that might help them.

In the short term wars drop the population. In WWII by like 4%. So we repopulated and then some. But it created a situation where people who were stupid or incapable were more likely to die, and it took some of the pressure off and our capital and infrastructure was at a good point for where the population was. Overpopulation in humans is really an issue of something like a ratio of people to infrastructure/capital.... but even then the lower total population the better. If an extra million population generates enough new traffic for Google to like add a server, and 10 more servers is enough to add a single job of server technician, it's easy to see why Quality of life goes down regardless the larger the population. What if all the jobs were things like Mcdonalds burger flipper, garbage man etc and only the top .01 percent of the population worked in corporate offices? We need to wall off and maybe auto turret our border, and then implement a eugenics program to deal with all the descendants of illegals (indirectly through IQ testing)

Those tests have been shown to be less dependent on random factors than it might seem from the perspective of the test taker.. First off it's one of those things where the test is designed to reveal a trend and is not sensitive to things like misreading a single question. The only time it becomes sensitive to stuff like that is if you hit the ceiling on the test... Second the general intelligence factor that the test is designed to measure is not sensitive to things like having a bad day. If you have a bad day, your IQ doesn't drop 20 points and you can no longer see the same pattern in shapes. The problems have an IQ range and if you are in that range, it is supposed to take you a relatively short time to do it. Maybe 30 seconds if you are familiar with the format, maybe a couple minutes if not. If you are below that IQ range, it's designed so you could spend 10x that and still not know for sure what the answer is, so you guess and probably get it wrong. Then the time allowed is such that the time per problem is enough for someone who is in the range to take all the time they need to get acquainted with the format. If you have the brains and you have a bad day.. you just score high while having a bad day. If you have a headache, you score high while dealing with your headache. If you purposely don't fill out the test, or are fuming because your girlfriend just broke up with you and refuse to even look at or think about the questions, then fine, but whose fault is that...

So the question is about what is the difference between an object and a process? In the algorithm I have created, it goes something like this. I input a picture, in the picture is a book inside a room. I move the book to a new room and input a picture of that. The algorithm identifies that the book is similar, but the background is not. Thus the image of the book is separated from the two backgrounds. How? You use the first image to create a network of nodes with certain strength connections to one another. The connections cause one node to light up if enough connected nodes are also lit up. Then you feed the second image in to the network. The book nodes light up the way they are supposed to but the background nodes do not. You create a new network from the inputting of the second image to the first image's network. The rule you use to do this causes the book's network to be severed from the background. This process theoretically involves something called hopfield nets, but actual hopfield nets are computationally expensive so I used a reduced version that is theoretically equivalent in the way it is used. Anyways the book is an object. Less than infinite precision allows you to recognize the book as the same thing even from different angles. You can even reduce the precision to make it easier to recognize things on purpose, and you can perform comparisons at different levels of precision. The lines between an object and a process are indeed blurred. (Epistemologically and in my algorithm) We think of an object as 3 dimensional, but to do this we think of a 2 dimensional object from different angles. Rotation is a process... Similarly we can identify a connection between say a person going through different stages of walking up and picking up an apple and eating it. We could watch someone give a command and then watch that person carry out the command. Then we can associate the command or name of the process with our observation of the process. The commander can express dissatisfaction with superfluous steps, or can give new commands prior to new processes being carried out. The point here is by observation such an person (or my algorithm) can pinpoint the beginning and end of the process. I haven't given every mathematical precise detail, because there are a lot of such details. But there are no barriers to this type of approach. I believe it is how human beings learn as well.

You keep responding as if there is some objective reality, but this objective reality is created as a function of our subjective reality. We think of it as more objective because other people seem to experience the same subjective reality so it seems the objective is a function of many people's equivalent subjective realities. But then again, we only have our subjective perspective to imply those people even really exist. Once we have reasoned that this objective reality exists, we forget and automate this process. But philosophers often find it useful to go back and consider perspective to answer some more difficult questions. It is useful for providing more precise definitions and understanding of concepts like time and many others. This is how people like Einstein amaze everyone else with theories that seem to come out of nowhere.

This is ironclad proof of what I am saying. The significance of IQ and the g factor has been completely scientifically validated and is beyond dispute. Yet this naive egalitarian attitude persists and is ruining the academic network and apparently civilization in general. There is no way to justify it objectively... no one even tries to. It just feels like the humane thing to do to let stupid people participate in the most intellectually demanding aspects of society. But in reality the results of this can be disastrous. Doctors killing people due to incompetence but being billed as "factors beyond their control". Lawyers allowing people to go to jail that did not commit crimes. Every attempt made to do this kind of thing brings us one step closer to the march of morons. And when dealing with any network like the academic network, the effects of it quickly compound. With enough relatively stupid people in any local environment, they are able to create a microcosm where anyone with higher ability is punished and force handicapped for their nature. This is done by simply redefining any displays of such ability as immoral, arrogant, or foolhardy regardless of the method or tact with which it is approached. If a person in a group successfully solves a problem before their group members, it is ok once. However once they have done it once or twice, group members try to force it to be "someone else's turn" by straw manning future attempts by the same person to solve any more problems. Here, group refers to any situation where a group of people interact. In reality though, it is usually the same intelligent person capable of solving the problems that arise. Therefore, the hope that the ideas of the group will quickly reflect the best ideas of the most intelligent people quickly begins to fade.