2 of 2
2
BAM! (aka the BRAIN iniative)
Posted: 29 September 2013 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16
TimB - 28 September 2013 12:22 PM
Occam. - 28 September 2013 11:31 AM
TimB - 26 September 2013 07:23 PM

I appreciate your good natured jest at George’s expense, but poking him, is just likely to get this thread off topic. 

I think it is an important topic, even if few others apparently do.

Apparently you missed the import of my statement.  First, unlike some here, I try to avoid long-winded babble.  Second, I was pointing out that this did seem to validate some of George’s arguments.  It certainly wasn’t “at George’s expense.”

Occam

As to your 2nd point:  Some of George’s arguments are going to be validated by almost any statements that have to do with human behavior, as his arguments tend to be that they are a product of evolution. And that is incontrovertible, as ontogeny is impossible without phylogeny.  It’s just that he seems to overemphasize phylogeny, to the extent that he has often seemed to consider ontogenic factors as generally irrelevant.  (Which, I believe, is as big a mistake as claiming that phylogenic factors are generally irrelevant.)

As in the example of our ancestors discovery of the uses of fire.  Sure, human’s may have been phylogenetically predisposed to discovering fire.  But not all of the advances in our technologies, related to the use of fire, can possibly be attributed to purely phylogenic factors alone.  All this, IMO, should go without saying.  But alas, when George’s perspective is brought up…

As to your perennial underlying quest for succinctness, I didn’t notice anything particularly long-winded in this thread, prior to your comment.

First, when I used “here” I was referring to the forum, not to this specific thread.  Second, I wasn’t trying to argue for or against any of George’s contentions, however, you demonstrated what I was saying by your own relatively long-winded response immediately above, starting with “As to your 2nd point” and ending with “brought up…”

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3071
Joined  2011-11-04

Taken to the extreme, succinctness may not lead to clarity.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2013 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Possibly, but I haven’t seen it to be the case.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 02:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31

Depends.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2013 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
TimB - 29 September 2013 07:04 PM

Taken to the extreme, succinctness may not lead to clarity.

It can lead to a paradox instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

In philosophy and logic, the liar paradox or liar’s paradox (pseudomenon in Ancient Greek) is the statement “this sentence is false.” Trying to assign to this statement a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction (see paradox).

If “this sentence is false” is true, then the sentence is false, which is a contradiction. Conversely, if “this sentence is false” is false, then the sentence is true, which is also a contradiction.

The statement “this sentence is false” is succinct, but is it clear?

It is succinct but it is neither clear nor precise because it is self-referential.

That is the problem of the liar’s paradox:

The problem of the liar paradox is that it seems to show that common beliefs about truth and falsity actually lead to a contradiction. Sentences can be constructed that cannot consistently be assigned a truth value even though they are completely in accord with grammar and semantic rules.

Applications:

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two fundamental theorems of mathematical logic which state inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems for mathematics. The theorems were proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, and are important in the philosophy of mathematics. Roughly speaking, in proving the first incompleteness theorem, Gödel used a modified version of the liar paradox, replacing “this sentence is false” with “this sentence is not provable”, called the “Gödel sentence G”. Thus for a theory “T”, “G” is true, but not provable in “T”. The analysis of the truth and provability of “G” is a formalized version of the analysis of the truth of the liar sentence.

Thus, the foundation of mathematics and mathematical logic is nebulous and unclear.  cheese

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2013 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

It seems quite clear, at least to me, that statements of any length can be unclear or can lead to paradoxes.  In other words, the correlation doesn’t appear to exist.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2013 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

By the way, Tim, topics tend to drift off course when they aren’t interesting to enough people.  If you want this thread to get back on your title subject, you may want to write a post on your thought about it.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2013 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28
Occam. - 01 October 2013 10:41 AM

It seems quite clear, at least to me, that statements of any length can be unclear or can lead to paradoxes.

They can be, but it is not necessarily so.

It depends on what is the nature, content and structure of the statement, the context and the intention of that particular statement.

Examples:

1. The famous statement by Julius Caesar: “I came, I saw, I conquered” is succinct, clear and not paradoxical.

2. The statement “this object is round” is succinct, clear and unambiguous in meaning (shaped like a circle, cylinder or sphere) and not paradoxical. The object is not ovoid, triangular or squarish etc.

OTOH, if it is so, then your signature “Succinctness, clarity’s core” is no criterion to clarity at all i.e. it is trivial and unreliable wrt clarity.  smile

In other words, the correlation doesn’t appear to exist.

Of course not, if correlation is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlation

:the relationship between things that happen or change together

Consequently, with no correlation and dependence between succinctness and “statements of any length can be unclear or can lead to paradoxes” we can also say the same wrt succinctness and clarity, without contradiction. 

In other words, succinctness does not entail clarity as it could lead to…..... LOL

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2013 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1905
Joined  2007-10-28

Actually, we are still on track (despite this digression) because if BAM! can and do emulate the human mind/brain in reality, it should be able to reason, reflect, discuss, debate, digress and argue from “all points of the compass” as humans do, after millions of years of natural evolution and development of their mind/brains for survival, for better or for worse.

BAM! implies that some humans now believe that (with sufficient scientific/technological knowledge/know how) it is possible and doable to emulate and elucidate how the human mind/brain functions, in totality. The issue of consciousness and the human mind/brain is not addressed at all or probably, it is considered as inconsequential. It is strong AI and all that it entails.

Consequently, there are two POV:

1. It is real and essential progress and promoted as the next wave whereby humans and their inventions/machines will merge to determine and control their evolution to the next level on the earth and beyond, whatever it may be. We, as mere humans, should accept this vision of our future as inevitable and cooperate to realize our destiny, without doubt or obstruction. Charming?  smile

2. It is not necessarily progress, more likely it is naive human hubris, science fiction and the delusions of some naive “enlightened technocrats” but because it is precisely that, it could be dangerous and regressive suicide for countless humans who are helpless, misinformed, clueless and therefore have no influence in determining their own future against such forces.


The rationale for 2:

1. To accept 1 above is to diminish our humanity as it implies BAM! (with it’s false assumption of the sole role of neurons in the functioning human brain) and the spin offs of such research to future “intelligent” human inventions/machines is the only path to the future and that these human creations can supersede nature.

2. It implies that humans are obsolete and replaceable by their “superior creations” sooner or later.

3. It is reminiscent of the Borg’s motto “resistance if futile” and the destiny or future that it entails.

4. Fundamentally, it has all the hallmarks of a dogmatic scientific/technological religion, without a deity.

5. The precautionary principle should be our guide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

So, at this juncture, whither the human race?

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2