The Problem with Science

[Kriminal99]

Accommodating your suggestion would detract from Docdick's amusement and 50% of his points.

 

If you don't like him running circles(and squares and triangles...) around you, then perhaps you should learn how to run too.

 

"Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game":phones:

 

Him running circles around me? Posting 6 pages in response to other people's posts hardly qualifies as running circles around people, and as for me specifically I hardly ever get into debates with "Dr." Dick because we don't frequent the same threads.

 

There is no allowance for artistic liscence in a reason based discussion. Your unconnected metaphor has no place here. Nor do attempts to invoke emotion.

 

Science brought Dr. Dick upon itself

 

Although I will say this. Dr. Dick represents a fallacy in the popular way of looking at education and the search for knowledge. When you demand that people go to any lengths to understand your language and your viewpoint before they be allowed to argue with you (Go read x y and z and memorize all related vocabulary) you open the door for people who can simply hide the fact that they are wrong by attaining any necessary credentials for society to deem them as the ones whose belief sets you must learn and then conceal their arguments in a haze of spaghetti reasoning and private language. Without knowing whether they are wrong or not ahead of time, you do know that this allows them to conceal bias and arbitrarilly reduce the number of people who can search for errors in their otherwise simple reasoning.

 

It's the "attaining the necessary credentials for society to deem them as the one whose belief sets you must learn" part that makes the "Dr." part of his name particuarlly ironic and amusing.

 

Imagine the horror

Imagine spending your whole life deciphering what someone (perhaps with a Ph. D) was saying only to find out that it made no sense and he was really a crackpot. Then you visited him in real life to find a house full of marijauna smoke and lots of science and math vocabulary books laid out everywhere.

 

Tell people in a way they can understand and that piques their interest

Anyways it only makes sense for very many reasons that society place the burden of explanation ALWAYS on the person explaining regardless of who accepts their views, what credentials they have, or anything else. In fact I think THIS is a fundamental problem with science and why it fails to have a signifigant impact on the general populace.

 

All you bright people should spend a little time thinking about a very simple problem. You are an immortal being in a locked in an empty room with no space to move and utterly no access to the outside world. Your only source of information about the outside world is a light which turns off and on: i.e., a binary sequence. Your only contact with the outside world is a switch which you can turn on and off: i.e., a binary sequence you can create. :shrug:

 

I believe this cannot allow you to understand much about the world for the simple reason that all human concepts are defined as functions of previous perceptions. The only concepts you can form if flashes of light are your previous experiences are functions of flashes of light. Time: The difference between the current state of the light and previous states, as well as memories of such differences (which allows you to remember which. Causation: flashing or sequences of flashes which are always followed by another sequence. Numbers: Flashes of light of the exact same length which occur more than once. Sure you can make some concepts like this but nowhere near as many as a normal person can.

 

No I do not think it is possible to create an AI that acts like people when its only input is binary.

 

I agree that people's world view are never the same. For example when you think of a beach you might picture one you saw in your childhood while someone else pictures a different one. Or when I speak of the problem with induction I remember the generality argument and someone else remembers global skepticism. However I think it also doesn't matter because we only speculate another person has a belief set based on their observable actions and we define agreement by a person acting in a manner which is coherent with your belief set. I say lets meet at south beach, you picture the beach from one angle and I picture it from another when thinking of our destination. However we still go to the same place.

[Qfwfq]

What's the point of being so abrasive Krim? You are welcome to ignore Dick's ideas if you want, but not to lack respect to him and others.

[Kriminal99]

Well he certainly seems to be more reasonable in this thread than I had seen before, upon closer inspection of his posts here.

 

But my feedback was limited to what Dr. Dick often does. He does use various tactics to invoke emotion from people he is debating with, he does often state the opposite of his opponent's arguments as truth apart from arguing such, he does expect people to go to great lengths to understand his arguments. I disagree with all of those things and my post outlines why I disagree with them. It is not an attack on him apart from those behaviors.

 

Which part of that constitutes an unnessecary lack of respect?

[Qfwfq]

Which part of that constitutes an unnessecary lack of respect?

For example, what you said to SB, but then replaced with "Nor do attempts to invoke emotion" just after your latest post.

 

I won't go into much other detail since you appear capable of recognizing what I meant, but there are still remarks about Dick such as: "that makes the "Dr." part of his name particuarlly ironic and amusing" which aren't quite necessary.

[Kriminal99]

Well yes I edited some things that didn't focus on what I disagree with. The part about the "Dr. Dick" title being ironic isn't saying that he shouldn't be a doctor. It is saying that it is amusing because it is like saying "I have a phd and society has deemed me knowledgable therefore you must go to great lengths to understand my arguments prior to having an opinion of them" and then uses this liscence to make all manner of extremely complex and unusual arguments.

 

I find it so amusing I think it would almost be worth it to go get a phd myself and then make off the wall arguments that I knew were wrong but required rediculous amounts of careful thought to even consider just to prove a point and laugh at everyone who considered my arguments just because I had a phd.

[hallenrm]

Oh dear, dear Kriminal99,

 

Now don't take offence of my way of adressing you, it really shows my true emotions. If I had married at the right age, today I would have a progeny of your age. So take my advice/suggestion as that from an old uncle. People, especially older, do behave in manners which are beyond the comprehension of vigrous youthful people of your age. One must try to be a bit more understanding. Who knows when you grow up to that age youngsters of your age may sneer at you in a similar fashion.

 

So please cool down a bit and smile :shrug:

[Qfwfq]

It is still an unnecessary remark and there's no point in continuing an off-topic discussion, I simply did what a mod should do.

 

His title is not enough to justify the type of expectation that you claim he presumes. What's wrong is mainly his approach in trying to communicate, also some of his assumptions about academia etc.

 

I find it so amusing I think it would almost be worth it to go get a phd myself and then make off the wall arguments that I knew were wrong but required rediculous amounts of careful thought to even consider just to prove a point and laugh at everyone who considered my arguments just because I had a phd.

If that's really your ambition, there's no law against it. I'm sure you have better things to do and I'm sure Dick is quite convinced of what he says, only unsuccessful in presentation and stubborn against anything that he percieves as criticism.

[Kriminal99]

Oh dear, dear Kriminal99,

 

Now don't take offence of my way of adressing you, it really shows my true emotions. If I had married at the right age, today I would have a progeny of your age. So take my advice/suggestion as that from an old uncle. People, especially older, do behave in manners which are beyond the comprehension of vigrous youthful people of your age. One must try to be a bit more understanding. Who knows when you grow up to that age youngsters of your age may sneer at you in a similar fashion.

 

So please cool down a bit and smile :)

 

I don't think it is beyond my comprehension. There is a certain psychologist who made observations about it, many of whose arguments were discarded for what seems to me not sounding scientific enough (But which I feel were mostly based on solid reasoning and can be worded differently to sound less hokey). He said something along the lines that as people get older they no longer see moral actions as beneficial behavior perhaps because they are less likely to get praised for doing them than a young person, and/or because they have a solid experience base on which they base beliefs regarding exactly which behaviors are going to be rewarded and which would be punished. They then do only what is necessary to get what they already know benefits them and avoid punishment.

 

Among average people it seems to result in older people making declarations by fiat much more often and requesting social support in debates from friends with total disregard for the "search for truth"

 

I don't suppose I would expect it to happen here to the same degree since here people have more experience and understanding of what behaviors are necessary to make a debate work. But yes I would certainly expect differences in behavior.

 

@Q I feel like both of these topics are somewhat relevant to the thread.

 

The "burden of knowledge on the understander" issue is a common theme within science. Commercials come on tv saying that "Scientists agree X drug is useful" (before the lawsuits start next year) I think this is caused by non-scientists, being specialized in another line of work, who cannot be bothered to decipher the language and reasoning of scientists who make no effort to make their work easily understandable to non scientists. They think their only options are to take the scientist's word for it or study it themselves, so they choose to take the scientists' word for it and hope it is a general consesus that has a low chance of being innacurate. Of course then all kinds of biases come into play. But the third option and one that is not endorsed by the scientific community is to ignore what the scientist says and do what makes sense to you unless the scientist words his argument in a way that is easiest for you to understand and therefore convinces you.

[Doctordick]

Thank you for that, I think. You have managed to compliment me and discount me in a single swoop.

As I said, your position “is no more than refusal to even consider the fact that a problem might exist here”. I am not putting you down, I am merely pointing out the actual difficulty which I face.

Cells on an individual basis have no comprehension.

Does that mean that the problem, “How we manage to create a world view starting from nothing?” is not a problem?

Cells as a collective, as a whole organism provide the tools for comprehension.

Isn’t that just a set of “buzzwords”, cells as a collective; as a whole organism; tools for comprehension, which just deflect attention from the existence of the problem of creating a world view?

But it is not a digital process.

Maybe not, but discussing the accomplishment and how it is achieved certainly is. Otherwise, we can’t discuss it, not on the internet or in any other publication anyway. This is no more than another means to deflect attention from the problem.

It is analog. And it is not just simply known, it is learned.

And how, pray tell, is it “learned”?

A developing life form receives stimulus from the environment

But, how does it know that it is receiving a stimulus from the environment if it has no idea as to what a stimulus is; or what an environment is? Again, these are all just Buzzwords deflecting attention from the fact that there is a problem here to be solved.

… and begins the process of learning, correlating, and turning the experience of the stimulus into meanings.

And pray, how are these steps to be accomplished? These are just more Buzzwords yielding the impression that the process is understood without actually explaining anything.

I am not suggesting that understanding of stimulus is quick and easy. Quite the opposite. And your suggestion that I inferred such a meaning defies all logical extrapolation.

I never suggested that you implied understanding of stimulus is quick and easy; what I said was that you were refusing to look at the problem. Don't feel bad, everyone refuses to consider such a thing.

Binary is not the common denominator of all sensory input. If I am wrong then perhaps you could explain why.

Well, if it is not, we certainly cannot talk about the mechanisms as our communications certainly can be put into binary form. If there exists aspects of sensory input which cannot be put into binary form, I can certainly say with confidence that it cannot be described or explained!

…better start my research right away.

You know, I always wondered why they called it “RE”-search. Does no one ever attempt an original search?

 

And, thanks for the picture. One of my students must have taken it when I wasn't looking!

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Southtown]

Do you have anymore comments about the flashing light conundrum? Remember, you left us with only the problem, no answers or even hints of any kind. I fear you are distracted from your point by addressing those who don't see it (me included.)

[ughaibu]

Southtown: The scenario is an extension of Plato's allegory of the cave, if you do an internet search, I expect you can find plenty of discussion.

[Qfwfq]

But, how does it know that it is receiving a stimulus from the environment if it has no idea as to what a stimulus is; or what an environment is? Again, these are all just Buzzwords deflecting attention from the fact that there is a problem here to be solved.

Dick, can you remember the very first time that you touched something hot enough to burn your fingers?

 

How long did it take you to yank your fingers away? How did you so quickly figure out (logically!) that otherwise the heat might cause permanent damage to your fingers?

[Doctordick]

Do you have anymore comments about the flashing light conundrum? Remember, you left us with only the problem, no answers or even hints of any kind. I fear you are distracted from your point by addressing those who don't see it (me included.)

ughaibu is absolutely correct, my specification is no more than a binary representation of Plato's allegory. The issue is that a real problem exists there. The fact that I have discovered a logical solution to that problem is a significant fact. So long as people insist that no problem exists, I am totally wasting my time trying to show them that solution.

Dick, can you remember the very first time that you touched something hot enough to burn your fingers?

 

How long did it take you to yank your fingers away? How did you so quickly figure out (logically!) that otherwise the heat might cause permanent damage to your fingers?

Here you go, avoiding the issue again. If I may paraphrase what you have just said: "My subconscious has solved the problem so, 'solving the problem' logically is of no interest to me." That is exactly the response one would expect from an athlete upon being told that, if he took a physics course, he would understand how fast the baseball has to be going to get out of the park. It demonstrates total lack of interest in science. A rather strange attitude for someone with "scientific training". But, as I have discovered, far too common an attitude in the scientific community.

 

That was exactly the subject I was trying to bring up in my first post Defining the nature of rational discussion!. You were the first one to respond to that post (and the only one for quite a while) and you made it quite clear that you didn't have the slightest idea as to what I was talking about. I just re-read the final post to that thread and cannot comprehend how the issue can be put any simpler. After almost six months of discourse, I don't think I ever got anyone to comprehend the need to distinguish between the two categories I was trying to lay out: one being logical and the other being intuitive. Even now, you continue to fail to recognize the important differences between the two.

 

The belief that logical analysis is the end all of understanding leads to science and the belief that intuitive analysis is the end all of understanding leads to superstition. A reading of history shows that society swings like a pendulum between the two. Both perspectives hold out the idea that they are the solution to all of humanities problems and both of them are totally wrong. History is a repeating story of each of them acquiring the public attention and support, eventually followed by collapse of the social structure when they fail; and, alone, they both fail and always will! Any rational analysis requires both and needs to done with accurate understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each. All I am trying to do is talk a little sense to you. Valuable science is based on superstition and valuable superstition is based on science and one needs to understand how the two work together.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Southtown]

Pray tell...

[Qfwfq]

Here you go, avoiding the issue again. If I may paraphrase what you have just said: "My subconscious has solved the problem so, 'solving the problem' logically is of no interest to me."

No, I was saying that a newborn baby's brain is not a tabula rasa.

 

After almost six months of discourse, I don't think I ever got anyone to comprehend the need to distinguish between the two categories I was trying to lay out: one being logical and the other being intuitive. Even now, you continue to fail to recognize the important differences between the two.

But the distinction is quite clear!

 

An animal that has touched a burning hot object will avoid touching that object again, or anything that looks like it. Induction schminduction, a kitten won't even try the second time and, if you try to make it touch the thing you'll get scratched and bit. We were designed to survive, long before becoming scientists.

 

Now, who says the problems of epistemology and metaphysics don't exist and should be ignored? You keep beating around the bush instead of trying to be clearer. When people try to get more clarity, you challenge them to find any error in your work. If I say "a + something = z" and you can't understand what "something" is, how can you show there's an error in what I say?

 

The belief that logical analysis is the end all of understanding leads to science and the belief that intuitive analysis is the end all of understanding leads to superstition.

Why superstition? :shrug:

[CraigD]

You are an immortal being in a locked in an empty room with no space to move and utterly no access to the outside world. Your only source of information about the outside world is a light which turns off and on: i.e., a binary sequence. Your only contact with the outside world is a switch which you can turn on and off: i.e., a binary sequence you can create. :hihi:

 

Now, it should be clear to you that all kinds of information about the outside world can be sent to you via that flashing light and, once you figure out the code, you can ask any question you wish. How do you go about establishing a meaning to those flashing lights?

Step 1: list givens

• My only source of information about the outside world is a light which turns off and on
  
• My only contact with the outside world is a switch which I can turn on and off
  

Step 2: list assumptions

• The data I can receive and send is digital (binary). I can’t decode or encode information about the duration of the light/switch off/on intervals
  
• I have a practically unlimited and perfect memory. I can remember every sequence of light flashes and switch flips necessary to solve the problem
  
• I’m as smart as an average adult human being. I have “human consciousness”.
  
• My objective is not to get out of the box
  
• As an immortal being, I have no survival needs. My objective is not to obtain a particular data necessary for survival
  
• I have some desire/objective. Doing nothing is not an acceptable solution to the problem given
  
• Absent survival needs, my objective is to turn the switch off and on in a way that results in light turning off and on in way that is pleasant.
  

From the context of the problem (and of Doctordick’s posts in general), I further assume that this pleasure will come from having understanding. I’d like to believe that my light and switch communication is conveying information, not “noise”.

 

It’s possible define this “pleasure of understanding” objective more formally as maximizing the information entropy of my memory. However, I think this definition is too counterintuitive for the current discussion.

 

I’d approach the problem iteratively – that is, try one thing, then another, until I’m pleased. I’d try this first, based on the assumption that someone like me is outside, receiving my switch flips and causing my light to flash.

• Observe the sequence (of light flashes). Find a subsequence that occurs more frequently than any other. Call this subsequence D (for delimiter)
  
• Send a subsequence beginning and ending in D
  
• Observe the result (sequence of light flashes)
  
• Repeat, until the result matches my sent subsequence A
  
• Send the subsequence that resulted when I send A, B
  
• Send A again, with a D-delimited subsequence replaced with one from another subsequence
  
• Repeat until B contains the replaced subsequence
  

and so on.

 

If this approach failed, I’d assume there is not someone like me outside, and try another approach.

Fundamentally, this is the problem solved by the millions of children born every year. Roughly, they seem to manage to decode the signals they get into something that makes sense to them in around a year. I would set that at being equivalent to something considerably less than ten^twenty flashes of that light.

I think this analogy fails, for several critical reasons, including

• Human beings are not immortal. They have survival needs
  
• Nervous systems do not process data as a stream of discrete binary digits
  
• In their early life, children are not as smart as a normal human, nor do they have what a reasonable person would term “human consciousness”. They lack the ability to associate cause and effect, or form memories, in a way adults typically take for granted
  

[TheBigDog]

The data I can receive and send is digital (binary). I can’t decode or encode information about the duration of the light/switch off/on intervals

The problem with this assumption (assuming I understand it correctly :hihi: ) is that without duration to the light being on and off then there is no pattern. It is on, then it is off, then it is on, etc. You need intervals for there to be meaning.

 

Bill