Are all effective ideals tools?
Seth Russell
tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
*any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
I'm looking for examples here.
--
Seth Russell
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Neil W Rickert
>I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
>tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
>concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
>circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
>particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
>compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
>minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
>*any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
I have had a lot of trouble making a Klein bottle. I hear tell that
NASA has not yet succeeded in building a matter transmitter.
jddde...@my-deja.com
Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
> tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
> concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
> circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
> particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
> compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
> minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
> *any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
>
>
> --
> Seth Russell
> Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm
> Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
>
>
Yes, there probably are always such identifications
and a study of their details of identity and use
would be important. One example occurs often and is
the idea [ Ayn Rand in her theories would call it a
concept ] of an horizon. This is a finite operational
pictorial reality of the infinite. It has many
interesting properties but maybe the most important
is that it converts the concept of place to that of
direction(orientation). All straight lines in the viewed
scene that are parallel will interesect at one "point"
[direction] on the horizon.
Another important property is that the geometric
anharmonic ratio is an observer invariant. Thus if you
see a picture of places with the horizon shown and if 3
points are located and a quadratic [circle,ellipse,
hyperbola,parabola, straight line pair] drawn that
passes through the locations as well as a "point"
{really an orientation} on the horizon then the points
form an harmonic distance proportion no matter how
they appear in the picture [projection].
Good Seeing. JD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Seth Russell
> Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> writes:
>
> >I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
> >tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
> >concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
> >circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
> >particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
> >compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
> >minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
> >*any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
>
> I have had a lot of trouble making a Klein bottle.
What's your trouble?
http://www.northnet.org/weeks/TorusGames/html/IntroToKleinBottle.html
> I hear tell that
> NASA has not yet succeeded in building a matter transmitter.
You've been hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Try http://members.aol.com/treknexus/
But seriously ...
I'm just following your lead and saying that the tangible verifiable
thing (material or real, if you prefer) is the P and not the X. And that
applies to ideals as well. This explains why ideals (like circles)
cannot be found in material reality - we should look instead for the
effective procedures that projected these ideals into our minds.
But then we have the signs that stand for the ideals (now Xs) that were
projected into our awareness by the effective procedures. The signs of
these ideals are **no longer constrained** by the Ps which projected
them. Instead, they are constrained only by the Ps that process signs,
and as such spin free of the original reality. Thus mind contains
impossible objects like Kline Bottles in 3 dimensions, and possible
objects for which tools have yet to be invented like matter transmitters.
dale
The adjective "circular" would replace it. This gives "circular drawing"
instead of "circle".
Dale Johnson
Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote in message
news:385E5BE7...@robustai.net...
> I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
> tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
> concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
> circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
> particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
> compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
> minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
> *any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
>
> I'm looking for examples here.
>
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> writes:
>> >I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
>> >tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
>> >concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
>> >circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
>> >particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
>> >compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
>> >minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
>> >*any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
>> I have had a lot of trouble making a Klein bottle.
>What's your trouble?
>http://www.northnet.org/weeks/TorusGames/html/IntroToKleinBottle.html
>> I hear tell that
>> NASA has not yet succeeded in building a matter transmitter.
>You've been hanging out with the wrong crowd.
>Try http://members.aol.com/treknexus/
>But seriously ...
>I'm just following your lead and saying that the tangible verifiable
>thing (material or real, if you prefer) is the P and not the X. And that
>applies to ideals as well.
The P was supposed to be the procedure for acquiring facts, and the X
a fact that the procedure provides. My main point was that it is the
P that we value as knowledge. I wasn't claiming that the X is not
tangible.
However, I should address the main point. We develop a procedure P
because of its effectiveness, which we judge on pragmatic grounds. A
procedure P that deals with the real world is likely to be messy and
imperfect. We can then attempt to come up with an idealized version
of P, in which we remove all of the messiness. Then this idealized
version can become the basis of abstract ideas and mathematics. Yet
what we learn about the idealized P can also be useful in our
practical applications of the imperfect and messy real P.
Roughly speaking that is how I view mathematics, and why I think the
effectiveness of mathematics is entirely reasonable, contrary to the
view of Wigner (E. P. Wigner. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of
Mathematics in the Physical Sciences," Communications in Pure and
Applied Mathematics 1960).
As an example, consider our measurement of length. It is an
imperfect procedure which limits the accuracy and repeatability of
our measurements. When we idealize this, we get Euclidean geometry,
in which all points, lines and cirles are perfect, and all
measurements (actions with ruler and compasses) are always taken to
be exact and perfect.
>But then we have the signs that stand for the ideals (now Xs) that were
>projected into our awareness by the effective procedures. The signs of
>these ideals are **no longer constrained** by the Ps which projected
>them. Instead, they are constrained only by the Ps that process signs,
>and as such spin free of the original reality. Thus mind contains
>impossible objects like Kline Bottles in 3 dimensions, and possible
>objects for which tools have yet to be invented like matter transmitters.
Yes, that is about right.
Seth Russell
> I think that "circle" should be stricken from AI analysis of English.
And would you also strike ever other noun, that points to an ideal?
> The adjective "circular" would replace it. This gives "circular drawing"
> instead of "circle".
Why would that be preferable?
Gary Forbis
> dale wrote:
>
> > I think that "circle" should be stricken from AI analysis of English.
>
> And would you also strike ever other noun, that points to an ideal?
I should hope not. I call myself human. I doubt there is any
universally effective procedure for determining the truth of such a claim.
Even if one existed, genetic tests have problematic cases for some instances
along the continuum from our collective ancestors to us. How much more so
for tests such as "Two eyes, two ears, etc.?
Seth Russell
have no corresponding tools?
jddde...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <385E5BE7...@robustai.net>,
> Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
> > tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
> > concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
> > circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
> > particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
> > compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
> > minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
> > *any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
> >
> > I'm looking for examples here.
> >
> > --
> > Seth Russell
> > Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm
> > Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
> >
> >
Seth Russell
> The P was supposed to be the procedure for acquiring facts, and the X
> a fact that the procedure provides. My main point was that it is the
> P that we value as knowledge. I wasn't claiming that the X is not
> tangible.
Well I think I am. My actual claim would be that Ps and Xs are in different
categories. That is to say the tangibility of a X is not the same as the
tangibility of a P. The Ps are molds for changes. These changes can be ~on~
causes in the natural world OR ~on~ representations in our minds. The Xs are
not changes at all - they are merely representations in our minds. Sure they
change, but they need Ps to change them.
> However, I should address the main point.
Thanks for your clear description of the process of forming ideals.
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> The P was supposed to be the procedure for acquiring facts, and the X
>> a fact that the procedure provides. My main point was that it is the
>> P that we value as knowledge. I wasn't claiming that the X is not
>> tangible.
>Well I think I am. My actual claim would be that Ps and Xs are in different
>categories. That is to say the tangibility of a X is not the same as the
>tangibility of a P. The Ps are molds for changes. These changes can be ~on~
>causes in the natural world OR ~on~ representations in our minds. The Xs are
>not changes at all - they are merely representations in our minds. Sure they
>change, but they need Ps to change them.
I like to use the camera as an analogy. The Xs are the photographs,
and the P is the camera with which we take the Xs. The photographs
have immediate temporary use. But we could toss them without losing
much, for as long as we still have the camera we can take more up to
date photographs whenever we need them. Therefore the camera, rather
than the photographs are what we should value as knowledge. Or, in
more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge.
For example, knowledge of a language counts as knowledge, not because
we have facts about grammar, but because with language we have a
marvellous ability to get information from many sources.
Seth Russell
> I like to use the camera as an analogy. The Xs are the photographs,
> and the P is the camera with which we take the Xs. The photographs
> have immediate temporary use. But we could toss them without losing
> much, for as long as we still have the camera we can take more up to
> date photographs whenever we need them. Therefore the camera, rather
> than the photographs are what we should value as knowledge. Or, in
> more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
> interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge.
I like the camera analogy.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> Are you saying that a "horizon" and a "anharmonic ratio" are ideals
that
> have no corresponding tools?
>
>
> > In article <385E5BE7...@robustai.net>,
> > Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> > > I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds
to
> > > tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
> > > concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
> > > circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
> > > particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
> > > compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
> > > minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are
there
> > > *any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding
tools?
> > >
> > > I'm looking for examples here.
> > >
> > > Seth Russell
> > > Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm
> > > Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
> > >
> > >
---
> >
> > Yes, there probably are always such identifications
> > and a study of their details of identity and use
> > would be important. One example occurs often and is
> > the idea [ Ayn Rand in her theories would call it a
> > concept ] of an horizon. This is a finite operational
> > pictorial reality of the infinite. It has many
> > interesting properties but maybe the most important
> > is that it converts the concept of place to that of
> > direction(orientation). All straight lines in the viewed
> > scene that are parallel will interesect at one "point"
> > [direction] on the horizon.
> >
> > Another important property is that the geometric
> > anharmonic ratio is an observer invariant. Thus if you
> > see a picture of places with the horizon shown and if 3
> > points are located and a quadratic [circle,ellipse,
> > hyperbola,parabola, straight line pair] drawn that
> > passes through the locations as well as a "point"
> > {really an orientation} on the horizon then the points
> > form an harmonic distance proportion no matter how
> > they appear in the picture [projection].
> >
I may have misheard your question. I thought you were
asking if there is always a link between an ideal
image of a concept and an actual, practical use of the
ideal idea [corresponding tool]. I'm saying yes I
believe there is! There are pure symbol manipulators
[ I call them symbman in my models based on the
theories of Ayn Rand ] who claim {for obvious WIZARD
reasons } that they invent languages without use
=king's word {some so-called pure mathematicians would
so claim ) but in the real world they are no more than
bad dreams or fantasies of mind invention and have NO
effective, objective lifetime (LT). Most can be
identified as such very easily and importantly in
seeing the BPs [Bad People].
Good seeing. JD
Seth Russell
> I may have misheard your question. I thought you were
> asking if there is always a link between an ideal
> image of a concept and an actual, practical use of the
> ideal idea [corresponding tool].
Yes that is what I was asking. I see we agree. We can invent almost
anything, but if it isn't grounded in a useful tool, it will not survive.
These tools need not be physical, as long as they find use in some domain
(mechanical, semiotic, economic, social, ethical, governmental,
psychological, artistic, etc... ) they have a chance of being propagated.
Otherwise, as you put it, they are nothing more than dreams and fantasies.
> Most can be
> identified as such very easily and importantly in
> seeing the BPs [Bad People].
What's an 'anharmonic ratio' and why is it 'observer invariant' ? Do you
think your BP and KM categories are observer invariant ? Because I really
don't think they are; and that is why i have serious troubles relating to
them.
Neil W Rickert
>Seth Russell wrote:
>> Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> > I like to use the camera as an analogy. The Xs are the photographs,
>> > and the P is the camera with which we take the Xs. The photographs
>> > have immediate temporary use. But we could toss them without losing
>> > much, for as long as we still have the camera we can take more up to
>> > date photographs whenever we need them. Therefore the camera, rather
>> > than the photographs are what we should value as knowledge. Or, in
>> > more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
>> > interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge.
>> I like the camera analogy.
>So you would be mortified if someone were to steal your camera,
>but you would be unconcerned if your photograph collection were
>destroyed? You would just go out and resurrect the deceased
>and relive past events, I suppose, as long as you had that particular
>camera.
Jim appears to have taken literally what was clearly given as only an
analogy.
jddde...@my-deja.com
In article <3863B6F5...@robustai.net>,
Anharmonic ratio is a convenient observer invariant
which mean all GPs [Good People] agree on it {with
the exceptions of errors and uncertainties and such}.
I've gone through these methods of describing the
HARV [ Hamilton Visualization and Ayn Rand
philosophy] models before so I'll say it compactly.
Being a GP is an objective [again for GPs] measure.
GPs live by open, honest(fair), and free exchange
with others and themselves, for their SOUL/happiness
growth. They are not the people who live by Fing
[Forcing, Fearing, and Frauding] others.
Are you saying that you can't tell if someone is
forcing you or you are voluntarily acting because
you want to? You can't distinguish who is helping
your happiness and who is hurting you? Maybe you
are saying that there are some societies where the
people (adults) don't believe in being free, they
believe in a "good" king and king's men. The people
accept and support the king's men because of all
the king's free loot they provide? That's what
some would say about hitler socialist germany in
the 20s and 30s and the greater than 95% vote by
the average people.
I am saying that is never the GP's long term view.
They have been frauded by the king's men into
accepting the king's men [hitler socialists] instead
of free people leadership (like Churchill). My models
would call such societies SLAVE SOCIETIES. You want
some middle ground? Of course it exists but over time
these decisions are true or false and objective [ GP
observer invariant or not ]. This is, of course, why
the king's men hate the Ayn Rand philosophy so much.
When we say that the American indian sociaties were
[ and largely still are ] slave societies they
don't like the truth spoken, naturally. When there
are chiefs and magic men and savage torures and all
the rest these are a typical king's society; a SLAVE
SOCIETY.
Closer to home, with some of my experiences in this
forum, is a similar protest from the BS [British
Socialists]. They don't like to hear they are
advocates of a slave society to support their filthy
king's riches while the average British citizen is
frauded into supporting their king's men luxury
living [ that's why it is called the Socialist Secret
State = S3MEN ]. Those few top king's men of the BS
[they now call it the third socialist way] control
about half of the TOTAL liquid wealth in the world.
Believe it or not? That massive theft is HOW SMART?
In the HARV models there is a FPS [Free People Space]
and a polar opposite KMS [ King's Men Space ] and we
understand how things happen and are related by
watching people and wealth ownership evolve in the
spaces. Thus socialist wealth is essentially stolen
wealth [ obtained by the BPs by Fing]. In the US
the king's men want a casino society ,as the mechanism
for their socialist take over, so they teach us to be
speculators to take our products. They are very, very
smart and maybe that is why you can't see them.
Certainly you must see king's greed in many of the
current society manipulations? No?
The operators and objects in the spaces are compounded
and reduced by powering [ numerical repetition ] and
by projecting [seeing]. An example of the latter
process is the use of the anharmonic ratio "tool".
Take a picture of a railroad track going off to the
horizon [infinity realized]. Say there are three
objects located along these essentially parallel
straight line tracks and you want to know if the
middle one is really half way between the other two?
It doesn't look so because of the projective
[pictoral] transformation [photo]. Compute [ or better
have your Free People Friend {FPF} compute ] the
anharmonic ratio of the measured distances [on the
photo] of the three objects and the point on the
horizon where the tracks vanish. If you have
selected the measures in the right order then these
four points will be in harmonic ratio [ the middle
one is half way between ] if you obtain 1/2 for the
ratio. Any photo of the similar situation will yeild
the same approximate result = an observer invariant.
In physical science all such measures as energy,
power, momentum,.... have similar observer invariant
properties and this is exactly why they are so
important for understanding.
Good seeing. JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Balter
>
> I wonder if there is a mapping of effective ideals in our minds to
> tools in our culture. For example, "the circle". There is no
> concrete particular that we can point to and say: that is "the
> circle"; therefore the circle is an ideal. But there are concrete
> particulars in our culture that create circles; for example
> compasses. My question is: For every effective ideal in humans
> minds, can we find a corresponding tool in human culture? Are there
> *any* effective ideals for which we cannot find corresponding tools?
>
> I'm looking for examples here.
You pick out one geometric example and point out that we have
tools in that shape, then you talk about "effective ideals" and
"particulars" that "create" the ideal, which is actually a shape.
This is just nonsensical gobbledegook. There are, for example, no
tools that produce images in the shape of love (because love is ineffective?), or of a polynomial equation. If you actually have
something coherent in mind, which I doubt, you need to be much more
clear about what you mean by "an effective ideal" and "a
corresponding tool". On the face of it, the answer is trivially that
most "ideals" (concepts) do not have corresponding "tools" (an artifact
that creates an image with the "ideal" as its geometric shape).
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
>
> Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> > I like to use the camera as an analogy. The Xs are the photographs,
> > and the P is the camera with which we take the Xs. The photographs
> > have immediate temporary use. But we could toss them without losing
> > much, for as long as we still have the camera we can take more up to
> > date photographs whenever we need them. Therefore the camera, rather
> > than the photographs are what we should value as knowledge. Or, in
> > more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
> > interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge.
>
> I like the camera analogy.
So you would be mortified if someone were to steal your camera,
but you would be unconcerned if your photograph collection were
destroyed? You would just go out and resurrect the deceased
and relive past events, I suppose, as long as you had that particular
camera.
The ability to read is of limited value if all the books are destroyed. The books are temporarily of little value if you don't know how to
read, but you can learn.
Perceptual capacity encodes the knowledge of how to extract information
from a medium, but doesn't "count as" the information encoded in
the medium. Neil in his dotage seems more and more to resemble one of
those blind men with a limited perspective of an elephant.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
>
> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
> >Seth Russell wrote:
> >> Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> >> > I like to use the camera as an analogy. The Xs are the photographs,
> >> > and the P is the camera with which we take the Xs. The photographs
> >> > have immediate temporary use. But we could toss them without losing
> >> > much, for as long as we still have the camera we can take more up to
> >> > date photographs whenever we need them. Therefore the camera, rather
> >> > than the photographs are what we should value as knowledge. Or, in
> >> > more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
> >> > interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge.
>
> >> I like the camera analogy.
>
> >So you would be mortified if someone were to steal your camera,
> >but you would be unconcerned if your photograph collection were
> >destroyed? You would just go out and resurrect the deceased
> >and relive past events, I suppose, as long as you had that particular
> >camera.
>
> analogy.
I responded to
Or, in more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge
and showed, *in terms of your analogy*, that it is bullshit.
You seem to have taken what I wrote literally and missed its
connection to your claim.
--
<J Q B>
Neil W Rickert
>I responded to
You showed no such thing.
>You seem to have taken what I wrote literally and missed its
>connection to your claim.
If there was a connection to my claim, then it was a
question-begging connection.
Jim Balter
I pointed out that the source of information cannot be duplicated by
the "perceptual capacity" in the absence of the source.
> >You seem to have taken what I wrote literally and missed its
> >connection to your claim.
>
> If there was a connection to my claim, then it was a
> question-begging connection.
It's no wonder no one will publish your stuff.
--
<J Q B>
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> >> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>> >> >So you would be mortified if someone were to steal your camera,
>> >> >but you would be unconcerned if your photograph collection were
>> >> >destroyed? You would just go out and resurrect the deceased
>> >> >and relive past events, I suppose, as long as you had that particular
>> >> >camera.
>> >> Jim appears to have taken literally what was clearly given as only an
>> >> analogy.
>> >I responded to
>> > Or, in more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
>> > interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge
>> >and showed, *in terms of your analogy*, that it is bullshit.
>> You showed no such thing.
>I pointed out that the source of information cannot be duplicated by
>the "perceptual capacity" in the absence of the source.
So what? That is quite irrelevant to what I was suggesting.
Jim Balter
Perceptual capacities only encode the knowledge required to extract
information from a medium; they do not encode the
information represented by the medium. Your "rather than" creates
a needless dichotomy (well, needless unless you are a curmudgeon
emotionally dependent upon having arguments). You can say otherwise or say that the negation of a claim is irrelevant to the claim until
you are blue in the face (and my experience with you is that you
indeed will), but to no avail.
--
<J Q B>
jddde...@my-deja.com
This is a second thought on the previous response
to your message. When you say that; you don't
believe that the distinction between the good
people (GPs) and the bad people (BPs) in terms of
those who live by fair,free,creative exchange and
those who live by taking and forcing, and false
appearance are objective, observer (GP) invariant
properties, could you be mixing wishes with
realities/truths? Of course these are truths
determined, on average over time based on repeated
and consistent actual actions.This is a key issue
of the Ayn Rand philosophy. No one [always
referencing GPs] WANTS/WISHES for even the
thoughts of BPs, let alone the feelings[spirit]
or the material realities [material theft] of
the BPs. We would like to think that, to some
extent, GPs is an automatic = a given, requiring
no effort or concern or thought. Because of the
political structure of human freedom [live at let
live-own your own business-your own private SOUL]
in America,in the past, this wish has had some
possibility of being close to real.The philosophy
tells us that such is never the truth long term
[LT] because of the existence of socialism =
socman = social manipulator. There are,have been
and always will be BPs who live by taking others
happiness [deliberately hurting people = authman
=authoritarian manipulators]. Of course, we want
to deny their existence but how successfull have
we been, in reality now and in expectation?
Some have called this need for perpetual vigilance
the cost of freedom but in a more general sense it
is the cost of happiness, the meaning of life in
America. Understanding these objective facts, in
reality, is the cost of GP happiness. It is why
the Ayn Rand philosophy is called a romantic/
realism philosophy. We should minimize the costs the
best possible, by having a good philosophy like that
of Ayn Rand { she asked "Who Needs Philosophy?" and
answered it by saying[in my terms] that the king's
men don't want US to have a good philosophy because
it hinders their takings } but never forget that,
long term (LT) if we don't pay these vigilance
costs the BPs will take US. This is not a happy
message but the Ayn Rand theory tells US it is true.
Now, how do we pay the costs without the BPs
dominating our lives, our levels of life (LOL)?
The Free People Friends [FPF] are part of the
answer. Think about the road blocker/life taker
[RBLT] thugs around Washington DC. If you have
ever visited there you know about them since
they particularly prey on visitors. It's similar
to what happened with Germans visiting Miami in
the past. People who think that the risks are
worth the large pay aufs for working in that
environment have ways of dealing with the RBLTs.
There is a local network that alerts the GPs to
where the RBLTs are taking big time on a
particular day. Think of having your FPF survey
all the sources, ranking how trustworthy they
are from past experiences and informing you of
the critical information.
Of course, in all your shopping decisions, the
good news from your FPF about who is trustworthy
will be applied to your final/ongoing/completed
buying decisions. This is how the family business,
capitalist service operations are monitored and
the payauf [pay for authoritarian force
"protection" racket] corp conspiracies avoided.
Good Seeing. JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Russell
> You pick out one geometric example and point out that we have
> tools in that shape, then you talk about "effective ideals" and
> "particulars" that "create" the ideal, which is actually a shape.
> This is just nonsensical gobbledegook. There are, for example, no
> tools that produce images in the shape of love (because love is ineffective?), or of a polynomial equation. If you actually have
> something coherent in mind, which I doubt, you need to be much more
> clear about what you mean by "an effective ideal" and "a
> corresponding tool". On the face of it, the answer is trivially that
> most "ideals" (concepts) do not have corresponding "tools" (an artifact
> that creates an image with the "ideal" as its geometric shape).
My usage of the word 'tools' her is to be interpreted very broadly as something that catalyzes a processes of change and survives.
These ~tools~ need not be physical, nor necessarily artifacts. If we cannot find a ~tool~ that creates an instance of an ideal, then
perhaps we should not call that ideal 'effective'. This is just a way to help us think practically about ideals in our culture, by
providing a *criteria* by which we can judge them.
Let me give a current example of this. Is my ideal of "Internet Intelligence" and effective ideal? Well at the moment I doubt than
anyone can point to a ~tool~ that creates an instance of this "Internet Intelligence". So by that criteria that ideal is not
effective. But such a ~tool~ is conceivable - see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0116.html
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>> >I pointed out that the source of information cannot be duplicated by
>> >the "perceptual capacity" in the absence of the source.
>> So what? That is quite irrelevant to what I was suggesting.
>"it is perceptual capacity (broadly interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge"
>Perceptual capacities only encode the knowledge required to extract
>information from a medium; they do not encode the
>information represented by the medium.
Well, that explains your confusion. Evidently you have failed to
distinguish between sensory capacities and perceptual capacities.
Jim Balter
*Capacities* are not knowledge. And if I am "confused", then so are
you, since you presented a camera as an analogy, and suggested that
the camera and not the photos it takes should be considered knowledge.
I pointed out that it is the photos, and not the camera, that we
consider precious. Intelligent people can understand why.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > You pick out one geometric example and point out that we have
> > tools in that shape, then you talk about "effective ideals" and
> > "particulars" that "create" the ideal, which is actually a shape.
> > This is just nonsensical gobbledegook. There are, for example, no
> > tools that produce images in the shape of love (because love is ineffective?), or of a polynomial equation. If you actually have
> > something coherent in mind, which I doubt, you need to be much more
> > clear about what you mean by "an effective ideal" and "a
> > corresponding tool". On the face of it, the answer is trivially that
> > most "ideals" (concepts) do not have corresponding "tools" (an artifact
> > that creates an image with the "ideal" as its geometric shape).
>
> My usage of the word 'tools' her is to be interpreted very broadly as something that catalyzes a processes of change and survives.
> These ~tools~ need not be physical, nor necessarily artifacts. If we cannot find a ~tool~ that creates an instance of an ideal, then
> perhaps we should not call that ideal 'effective'. This is just a way to help us think practically about ideals in our culture, by
> providing a *criteria* by which we can judge them.
>
> Let me give a current example of this. Is my ideal of "Internet Intelligence" and effective ideal? Well at the moment I doubt than
> anyone can point to a ~tool~ that creates an instance of this "Internet Intelligence". So by that criteria that ideal is not
> effective.
Or perhaps the criterion (how many times does this word have to
be repeated before you grap that "criteron" is singular and
"criteria" is plural?) is ill-considered.
All you now seem to be saying is that only instantiations are
"effective". You can make the claim if you want, but it is a rather arbitrary; concepts (I would avoid the Platonic errors that accompany the word "ideals") can be effective indirectly without
ever actually being instantiated themselves.
--
<J Q B>
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> >> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>> >> >I pointed out that the source of information cannot be duplicated by
>> >> >the "perceptual capacity" in the absence of the source.
>> >> So what? That is quite irrelevant to what I was suggesting.
>> >"it is perceptual capacity (broadly interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge"
>> >Perceptual capacities only encode the knowledge required to extract
>> >information from a medium; they do not encode the
>> >information represented by the medium.
>> Well, that explains your confusion. Evidently you have failed to
>> distinguish between sensory capacities and perceptual capacities.
>*Capacities* are not knowledge.
Then books have lots of knowledge, and people have very little.
As I suggested in an earlier response, you were begging the
question. For it was the question of what is knowledge that was
being debated.
If you want to settle that for yourself as a matter of pure
definition, you are of course entitled to do so. But making that
definition the basis for your objection to the discusssions of others
is thoroughly question begging.
Seth Russell
> Or perhaps the criterion (how many times does this word have to
> be repeated before you grap that "criteron" is singular and
> "criteria" is plural?) is ill-considered.
> All you now seem to be saying is that only instantiations are
> "effective".
That would not be something that I claimed - rather it is your take on something I claimed. According to my way of thinking it is the surviving process that catalyzes the change (~tool~) that make
the concept effective, not the instantiation. That is my take on Rickert's concept "it is perceptual capacity (broadly interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge".
> You can make the claim if you want, but it is a rather arbitrary; concepts (I would avoid the Platonic errors that accompany the word "ideals") can be effective indirectly without
> ever actually being instantiated themselves.
Hmmm... name one.
Jim Balter
>
> Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > Or perhaps the criterion (how many times does this word have to
> > be repeated before you grap that "criteron" is singular and
> > "criteria" is plural?) is ill-considered.
> > All you now seem to be saying is that only instantiations are
> > "effective".
>
> That would not be something that I claimed - rather it is your take on something I claimed.
Your claims are fuzzy and inconsistent, so all I can do is say what
you *seem* (to me, of course) to be saying. It's not my fault that
you don't communicate well.
> According to my way of thinking it is the surviving process that catalyzes the change (~tool~) that make
> the concept effective, not the instantiation.
You previously wrote of compasses and circles; a compass is not a
process, and I don't know what "change" it is "catalyzing" to make
the concept of "circle" effective. It's easy (it must be, cuz
*you* do it) to just string words together into vague "hypotheses",
but it takes a certain amount of coherence and application to
the facts to make it worth anything.
> That is my take on Rickert's concept "it is perceptual capacity (broadly interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge".
The best way to take it is with a bucket of salt.
> > You can make the claim if you want, but it is a rather arbitrary; concepts (I would avoid the Platonic errors that accompany the word "ideals") can be effective indirectly without
> > ever actually being instantiated themselves.
>
> Hmmm... name one.
We conceive of many things before they are instantiated.
Some of them are never instantiated, may in fact be uninstantiable,
but are effective in affecting our behavior or leading to other
concepts that are instantiable.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
>
> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>
> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> >> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
> >> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
> >> >> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>
> >> >> >I pointed out that the source of information cannot be duplicated by
> >> >> >the "perceptual capacity" in the absence of the source.
>
> >> >> So what? That is quite irrelevant to what I was suggesting.
>
>
> >> >information from a medium; they do not encode the
> >> >information represented by the medium.
>
> >> Well, that explains your confusion. Evidently you have failed to
> >> distinguish between sensory capacities and perceptual capacities.
>
> >*Capacities* are not knowledge.
>
> Then books have lots of knowledge, and people have very little.
False inference. Books contain information; often we say they
contain knowledge. People have knowledge in that they have access to
information that they don't need to access externally. Its a matter
of the way we use language; We simply don't say that someone has the
knowledge contained in a book simply because they are able to read the
book. You may say it, but you are misusing language -- failing to play
the language game others play.
> As I suggested in an earlier response, you were begging the
> question.
Oh bullshit. As so often, you speak vaguely, then expand the conversation, then accuse people who didn't take you earlier to
be saying what you said later of various sorts of sins.
> For it was the question of what is knowledge that was
> being debated.
I don't see it as much of a debate, I seem it as you saying
uncontroversially stupid things, and then later elaborating on
them in various ways to try to make them seem less stupid.
> If you want to settle that for yourself as a matter of pure
> definition, you are of course entitled to do so.
Unless you have become a Platonist, that is indeed what it is.
> But making that
> definition the basis for your objection to the discusssions of others
> is thoroughly question begging.
My objection is to your playing humpty dumpty. When you say that
capacities *should* count as knowledge, you are saying that we
should use words contrary to their normal meanings, and there is
no way to know a priori just what *you* mean by these non-standard
usages.
--
<J Q B>
Seth Russell
> You previously wrote of compasses and circles; a compass is not a
> process, and I don't know what "change" it is "catalyzing" to make
> the concept of "circle" effective. It's easy (it must be, cuz
> *you* do it) to just string words together into vague "hypotheses",
> but it takes a certain amount of coherence and application to
> the facts to make it worth anything.
First there is no circle there, then there is a circle there - that is
the change. Were we not able to make a circles, then our
concept of them would be not be effective.
> We conceive of many things before they are instantiated.
> Some of them are never instantiated, may in fact be uninstantiable,
> but are effective in affecting our behavior or leading to other
> concepts that are instantiable.
Perhaps, but could you provide me with one example ?
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
>> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> >> >Perceptual capacities only encode the knowledge required to extract
>> >> >information from a medium; they do not encode the
>> >> >information represented by the medium.
>> >> Well, that explains your confusion. Evidently you have failed to
>> >> distinguish between sensory capacities and perceptual capacities.
>> >*Capacities* are not knowledge.
>> Then books have lots of knowledge, and people have very little.
>False inference. Books contain information; often we say they
>contain knowledge. People have knowledge in that they have access to
>information that they don't need to access externally. Its a matter
>of the way we use language; We simply don't say that someone has the
>knowledge contained in a book simply because they are able to read the
>book. You may say it, but you are misusing language -- failing to play
>the language game others play.
We simply don't talk about somebody having the knowledge contained in
a book for the simple reason that there isn't any knowledge contained
in books.
>> As I suggested in an earlier response, you were begging the
>> question.
>Oh bullshit. As so often, you speak vaguely, then expand the conversation, then accuse people who didn't take you earlier to
>be saying what you said later of various sorts of sins.
Why don't you just eat that shit. If you don't like the way I
discuss things, you can always ignore those threads.
>> For it was the question of what is knowledge that was
>> being debated.
>I don't see it as much of a debate, I seem it as you saying
>uncontroversially stupid things, and then later elaborating on
>them in various ways to try to make them seem less stupid.
Just killfile the whole thread and be done with it.
>My objection is to your playing humpty dumpty. When you say that
>capacities *should* count as knowledge, you are saying that we
>should use words contrary to their normal meanings, and there is
>no way to know a priori just what *you* mean by these non-standard
>usages.
That is more bullshit for you to dine on. Philosophers may use
"knowledge" as "justified true belief". Most non-philosophers are
far more impressed with knowhow, that with the ability to spout off
supposedly erudite abstractions.
Ryle ("The Concept of Mind") has a chapter "Knowing How and Knowing
That", in which he makes the case that it is the "knowing how" that
really counts as knowledge. Richard Feynman ("Surely You're Joking,
Mr. Feynman!") has a chapter about the worthlessness of book
knowledge without any accompanying capacities.
In any case, it is bloody obvious that no computer can have
"knowledge" in the standard usage of the term. So if you are all
that concerned with avoiding non-standard usages, you ought to give
up completely on AI. The usage of the term "knowledge" in AI, as in
"Knowledge Representation" or "Knowledge Based Systems" or "Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining" is very non-standard usage.
Jim Balter
>
> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
> >> Jim Balter <j...@sandpiper.net> writes:
> >> >Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> >> >> >Perceptual capacities only encode the knowledge required to extract
> >> >> >information from a medium; they do not encode the
> >> >> >information represented by the medium.
>
> >> >> Well, that explains your confusion. Evidently you have failed to
> >> >> distinguish between sensory capacities and perceptual capacities.
>
> >> >*Capacities* are not knowledge.
>
> >> Then books have lots of knowledge, and people have very little.
>
> >False inference. Books contain information; often we say they
> >contain knowledge. People have knowledge in that they have access to
> >information that they don't need to access externally. Its a matter
> >of the way we use language; We simply don't say that someone has the
> >knowledge contained in a book simply because they are able to read the
> >book. You may say it, but you are misusing language -- failing to play
> >the language game others play.
>
> We simply don't talk about somebody having the knowledge contained in
> a book for the simple reason that there isn't any knowledge contained
> in books.
Aside from your idiotic quibble about what it is that is contained
in books, the point that you dishonestly fail to address is that people
who have read books are considered more knowledgeable than people
who haven't, so books are essential to knowledge, and "capacities"
*alone* are insufficient to amount to knowledge.
> >> As I suggested in an earlier response, you were begging the
> >> question.
>
> >Oh bullshit. As so often, you speak vaguely, then expand the conversation, then accuse people who didn't take you earlier to
> >be saying what you said later of various sorts of sins.
>
> Why don't you just eat that shit. If you don't like the way I
> discuss things, you can always ignore those threads.
Neil, that you are a dishonest dickwad is an observation.
If you don't like the observation, then you can behave differently,
or *you* can eat it. Because I will continue to shovel your shit
back at your gaping maw, and there's nothing you can do about it.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
This is a silly game, but I'll give you just one: "Robust AI".
--
<J Q B>
Neil W Rickert
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> We simply don't talk about somebody having the knowledge contained in
>> a book for the simple reason that there isn't any knowledge contained
>> in books.
>Aside from your idiotic quibble about what it is that is contained
>in books, the point that you dishonestly fail to address is that people
>who have read books are considered more knowledgeable than people
>who haven't, so books are essential to knowledge, and "capacities"
>*alone* are insufficient to amount to knowledge.
If you have not gained any capacities as a result of reading the
book -- for example the capacity to intelligently discuss the content
of the book, then you have only pretended to read it.
jddde...@my-deja.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few further words about the business of dealing
with the BPs which you think it is of questionable
objective reality. I strongly disagree with the
idea that it is subjective but beyond that it
identifies a market for the FPF {Free People Friends].
Think of it like the market audience for one of the
few free people leaders ; RUSH. These are the people
who feel and sense and think that the BPs are taking
their happiness and they aren't too proud to seek
help from an FPF [or a RUSH] in dealing with the BPs.
They realize that their efforts to resist the takings
are very slight and ineffectual compared to the very,
very smart socman takers. They don't want to just
seek escape in the usual ways of Um,Um, and Um with
Um ; or Numb, Dumb, and Mum often with Rum. I think,
because of Um^4, that there are many more such
victims, [Ayn Rand called US sanctioners of the BPs
takings] than you perceive. WE need the FPFs! The
American free people spirit [FPS] is of huge impact.
Good seeing. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jddde...@my-deja.com
A fourth (4th) response to your doubts about the objective
value of the FPF [Free People Friends] { we're going to
have enough for bridge!}. This is important to me because
I, of course, hear the complaint often when I explain the
impact of the FPFs. Part of, [and most important], what I
hear you saying is people, in general, don't care much
about freedom they are more interested in the "wheels" or
whatever. If we said that they don't care that much about
happiness we would get a bigger argument going but you may
think this also. The two are synonymous! The Ayn Rand
theory teaches us that freedom is the key overriding aspect
of happiness [ it's not enough but it is essential]. If we
lose that and the BPs = socmen are able to enslave America;
so we are completely their serfs, they will have completed
the taking of our life time = our SOUL = our happiness.
That is just how important and valueable is the issue and,
as Ayn Rand had to do, there is much teaching to be done,
correctly [voluntary self profiting = capitalist = family
business, so people understand that we all need as much
help as we can find in protecting and growing our
political freedom. It's not a side issue , an afterthought,
it is the central issue of happy American life for US all.
Other countries want to be socialist?, want socman
"leaders"? maybe their business? but not here!
Good seeing. JD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Russell
> Are you saying that you can't tell if someone is
> forcing you or you are voluntarily acting because
> you want to? You can't distinguish who is helping
> your happiness and who is hurting you?
Yes, I am saying that I know of no absolute method of determining this.
Usually I think I know for myself, but sometimes I am unsure even for
myself. I am progressively more unsure when it comes to determining that
for some other person. Take my 10 year old son for example. He will
always say that he wants junk food. Am I helping his happiness by always
giving it to him? I'm sure you'll agree that there is a great diversity of
ethical values. I choose that my current happiness is served by preserving
that diversity. Does your design of the FPFs work to increase or decrease
that ethical diversity?
My conception is that a PF (subjective personal friend tool) would contain
no ethical prescriptions or biases whatsoever as downloaded from the
factory. Rather it would merely contain the interfaces and methods for
customizing one's subjective view of the world. There would be many tool
modules, mind views, and expert knowledge mentons available for loading
into the PF from web pages. And on the producer end, virtually and
person or group (with a PF) could store ~semantic content~ from their
personal friend on a web page making it available for voluntary inclusion
in the PFs of other browsers. I see the ethical prescriptions in your GPs
and BPs as such volentary loadables.
Another, slightly different, description of this conception can be found at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0116.html
> In physical science all such measures as energy,
> power, momentum,.... have similar observer invariant
> properties and this is exactly why they are so
> important for understanding.
I don't believe that there are any such invariants that apply in social and
ethical domains. Personally I value ~respect for others subjectivity and
freedom~ very highly, but there are those that do not subscribe to that
principal. If I follow my own principal here, I must respect their
disrespect. You may feel that is a yucky choice, but I see no way to avoid
it.
jddde...@my-deja.com
Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> jddde...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that you can't tell if someone is
> > forcing you or you are voluntarily acting because
> > you want to? You can't distinguish who is helping
> > your happiness and who is hurting you?
>
this.
> Usually I think I know for myself, but sometimes I am unsure even for
> myself. I am progressively more unsure when it comes to determining
that
> for some other person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I see the disagreement. The FPFs come with built
in values like [similar to what we all know by about the
age of 5 "in our heart"] 1) it is wrong to deliberately,
aggressively attempt to physically,mentally or emotionaly
hurt another person. This is a socman, social manipulator
in the models and obviously there is much more to it than
this simple statement. Exactly who these BPs are is,
obviously, personal and subjective part [in specific
identity] of individual SOUL decisions. Such ultimate
decisions are always in the hands of the person using the
FPF machine. The FPF knows about historical examples of
giant BPs like the hitler socialists [incidentally hitler
only finished slightly above a write-in canidate for the
most evil man of the century, this democrat politican was
considered slightly more evil than the stalin socialist]
and will provide the remembered facts for assistance in
decisions but the owner is the decider as the term says
SOUL = Self Ownership of yoUr Life.
Thus in this picture it is not up to you to decide who
are the BPs except for you and your family. It is the
meanings, the truths that are objective and not a person's
personal values. As meaning they are personal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take my 10 year old son for example. He will
> always say that he wants junk food. Am I helping his happiness by
always
> giving it to him? I'm sure you'll agree that there is a great
diversity of
> ethical values. I choose that my current happiness is served by
preserving
> that diversity. Does your design of the FPFs work to increase or
decrease
> that ethical diversity?
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all the FPFs are not designed [they are based on
the Ayn Rand philosophy and the Hamilton Visualization
methods of description =HARV] based on a global goal like
increase some group's prosperity. They are designed as
intelligent tools to help the user enhance their happiness.
Help the average user be smart (enough) to be happy. Now,
as usual, the people I am talking about are the GPs. If the
FPFs ended up helping the socman enslave the GPs then it
would be a terrible irony for the Ayn Rand philosophy and
this implementation of the ideas of freedom. That is an
important consideration and it won't happen.
Second, we are not talking about children but adult free
people. I assume that you would even use force to save
your child from injury crossing the road and in turn the
FPFs that he will grow up with will be decided on by you
until he learns to be a free adult.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> My conception is that a PF (subjective personal friend tool) would
contain
> no ethical prescriptions or biases whatsoever as downloaded from the
> factory. Rather it would merely contain the interfaces and methods
for
> customizing one's subjective view of the world. There would be many
tool
> modules, mind views, and expert knowledge mentons available for
loading
> into the PF from web pages. And on the producer end, virtually and
> person or group (with a PF) could store ~semantic content~ from their
> personal friend on a web page making it available for voluntary
inclusion
> in the PFs of other browsers. I see the ethical prescriptions in
your GPs
> and BPs as such volentary loadables.
>
> Another, slightly different, description of this conception can be
found at
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0116.html
>
> > In physical science all such measures as energy,
> > power, momentum,.... have similar observer invariant
> > properties and this is exactly why they are so
> > important for understanding.
>
> I don't believe that there are any such invariants that apply in
social and
> ethical domains. Personally I value ~respect for others subjectivity
and
> freedom~ very highly, but there are those that do not subscribe to
that
> principal. If I follow my own principal here, I must respect their
> disrespect. You may feel that is a yucky choice, but I see no way to
avoid
> it.
>
> --
> Seth Russell
> Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm
> Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference the invariants, the reason you don't see them
is because you don't see the patterns of growth and
interaction in FPS [Free People Space]. They are exactly
the same properties as in physical science once you
describe the human wealth generation processes in FPS as
I have commented previously. If you think about it
economically/ materially it may be clearer. It's why Ayn
Rand also wrote a specific book on economics = family
business = capitalism(with a small c), even though the
majority of her philosophy is about mind = reason and
emotions = feelings.
Yes! you summarize the situation well when you comment
on accepting "diversity". Of course free people diversity
is great, the BEST, what SOUL is all about, but BPs
manipulate the terms to mean why not accept and look away
at their evil. The hitler and russian socialists always
told us how much they loved PEACE also, do you remember?.
Is this a problem with truth finding? You are so worried
that you might make a mistake that you won't decide who
are the BPs? A job for the FPFs! in remembering the
patterns of real behavior that identifies the BPs. The
hitler socialists laid socialism all out in writing,
could a FPF help us see the pattern back in the 1920s?
The FPS [Free People Spirits] must be able to see and
understand and prepare for evil. It is a nasty cost of
freedom = happiness. This is what President Reagan did
when he called for the evil empire socialist dictator
to; tear down this wall Mister gorby! Do your
principles mean that you must treat BPs who are committed
to destroy you, to take you, to enslave you in the same
way you would treat a good person who you like and is on
your side and a friend. The Ayn Rand philsophy is very
clear about this key distinction between the inherent
right of life and self defense against socman and the
ethical relations with GPs. She wouldn't call weakness
on this Love Of Life (LOL) issue just yucky. If your PFs
don't help the owners in being SAFE from being TAKEN and
ENSLAVED how will they be able to trust it's value at
all as an intelligent assistant?
Good seeing. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jddde...@my-deja.com
Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> jddde...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that you can't tell if someone is
> > forcing you or you are voluntarily acting because
> > you want to? You can't distinguish who is helping
> > your happiness and who is hurting you?
>
> Yes, I am saying that I know of no absolute method of determining
this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are saying you want "absolute" methods. In a sense,
nothing human is absolute because it depends on human
decisions and these can change , be uncertain, be wrong
and so forth. The Ayn Rand philosophy of my models has
been designed to be as objectively true as possible
while being human true. That's why she called her
philosophy Objectivism.
An example of an objective category about the BPs is
their danger distance to you. Socman {social
manipulators} don't just think about or desire to
manipulate you they act it out by Fing [Force, Fear,
Fraud] you. Let's be specific and ask how smart/
intelligent is your PF that I might want to purchase.
If the PF can't help distinguish between a FPS {Free
People Spirit] who believes and acts on the basis of
believing in freedom [ LOL (Love Of Life)and LALL
(Live And Let Live)] and a socman who believes in
manipulating others by Fing to get what they want
and thus have a certain TAKING danger distance in my
life then how smart is it? It would be like a PF
acting as a call screener that couldn't understand
"don't connect me to any sales people today" or a
music screening PF that couldn't distinguish jazz
from rock and roll.
------------------excerpted, see original-------------------------
> My conception is that a PF (subjective personal friend tool) would
contain
> no ethical prescriptions or biases whatsoever as downloaded from the
> factory. Rather it would merely contain the interfaces and methods
for
> customizing one's subjective view of the world. There would be many
tool
> modules, mind views, and expert knowledge mentons available for
loading
> into the PF from web pages. And on the producer end, virtually and
> person or group (with a PF) could store ~semantic content~ from their
> personal friend on a web page making it available for voluntary
inclusion
> in the PFs of other browsers. I see the ethical prescriptions in
your GPs
> and BPs as such volentary loadables.
>
> Another, slightly different, description of this conception can be
found at
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0116.html
>
------------------excerpted,see original-----------------------------
This seems reasonable to me and makes me think that part
of our disagreement is semantic. You speak of the ethical
knowledge and understanding of the PF as biases but I see
them as no different than your understanding of what I
mean by a socman. If the PF is going to help US spot,
remember, avoid,... a propagandist or a hypster or any
other type of socman in a king's men cassino market then
it must know and understand what these characteristics
mean. Then the question is; is the danger distance and
size of such dimensions that we must run away as fast as
possible? This is the personal human decision that no PF
can make. It is part of our SOUL about what types of
people we associate with. But if the PF can't handle the
concepts, the meanings then it isn't very smart and it
isn't going to help us implement the Ayn Rand happiness
theories.
How do we know specifically about the objective truth
about a socman? Well some, like the hitler socialists in
the 1920s, come right out and declare what they believe
as king's men who plan on overing, Fing others as
aggressive coercers. Will it ever be absolutely certain
and guaranteed? NO! in the same sense that the PFs will
never be REALLY alive like the frankenstein clone
technicians wish for.
jddde...@my-deja.com
Seth Russell <se...@robustai.net> wrote:
> jddde...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that you can't tell if someone is
> > forcing you or you are voluntarily acting because
> > you want to? You can't distinguish who is helping
> > your happiness and who is hurting you?
>
> Yes, I am saying that I know of no absolute method of determining
this.
> myself. I am progressively more unsure when it comes to determining
that
> always say that he wants junk food. Am I helping his happiness by
always
> giving it to him? I'm sure you'll agree that there is a great
diversity of
> ethical values. I choose that my current happiness is served by
preserving
> that diversity. Does your design of the FPFs work to increase or
decrease
> that ethical diversity?
>
contain
> no ethical prescriptions or biases whatsoever as downloaded from the
> factory. Rather it would merely contain the interfaces and methods
for
> customizing one's subjective view of the world. There would be many
tool
> modules, mind views, and expert knowledge mentons available for
loading
> into the PF from web pages. And on the producer end, virtually and
> person or group (with a PF) could store ~semantic content~ from their
> personal friend on a web page making it available for voluntary
inclusion
> in the PFs of other browsers. I see the ethical prescriptions in
your GPs
> and BPs as such volentary loadables.
>
There are two further distinctions that relate to this
question of knowing and understanding the observer
invariants of life description that are needed by the
FPF [Free People Friend] or the AI [Assistant
Intelligence] machines to actually be SMART and
important to US. The first is that the dynamics is
more important for understanding and anticipation
[ I assume this is a big part of your work since
when I think ROBUST I think strength and ability to
be prepared for difficulties so that happiness
prevails both in ideal image and in actual reality
- these are distinct pictures in the HV formulation]
than statics. Said another way; it's critical to
understand the going, the doing, the cycling as well
as the position in the FPS{Free People Space]
description of life time[LT] patterns. Second if
these objective observer invariants didn't exist, as
I partially hear you saying, then we couldn't have a
meaningful exchange of information because the words
{Hamilton called them the Symbolical Geometry} we
use would only be whims of the king's men like, was
it the rabbit in Alice? This is part of the king's
con. If they can't lie to us well enough to
manipulate us by direct fraud they do it by
deceptive fraud = obfuscation, confusion, "relative"
linguistics,...I'm sure you know what I mean and
it's part of why you don't want to decide the BPs.
You have never commented on the specific examples
of objective observer invariant language that the
Ayn Rand philosophy uses all the time. She tells us
that we can, we better {for our own HAPPINESS and
SOUL}, and it all makes sense over time KNOW WHO?
lives [makes their living] buy production, and
fair, honest exchange = GPs and those who steal
their living from others and live filthy king's
rich on the loot = BPS {both the socialist masters
and the socialist serfs}. Are you saying you can't
see this at ALL?, that it is too theoretical for
your models to tell? that there is so much
confusion and randomness that you don't want to
take the chance of an error and can't think of a
way to decide happy? or that some of the
manipulators that steal our decides, our minds
and feelings are "good" king's men "helping" US?
Do I hear another market call for the FPFs?
Good seeing. JD
jddde...@my-deja.com
and subjective use comes out with the FPF [Free
People Friend] let's take a case of that socialist
we all know something about since the king's
media has never been able to completely cover-up
for him [ this distinguishes him from that write-in
"winner" of the MOST EVIL MAN OF THE CENTURY!]. I'm
talking about the hitler socialist of germany of
the 1920s,1930s, and 1940s. The FPF, if it works,
is alerting US that the hitler socialist is an
extreme socman [social manipulator], a socialist
dictator killer. It is even helping US see when he
is likely to collapse as do all such authmen
[authoritarian MENtalities].
Now, if the FPF owner wants to neglect this factual
information and decide that the hitler socialist is
a "good" person and should be voted for as the more
than 95% of the germans did in 1932 [as I've
detailed the documentation in another thread] then
they tell the FPF to put the hitler socialist in
the general GP category for their personal, private
decisions. [and they probably throw the FPF away
and get a chompsky model]. The point is that after
the fact, it wasn't a dumb FPF that made the
mistake. Remember that the FPFs based on the Ayn
Rand philosophy are going to just be one type of AI
[ Assistant Intelligence ] machine available. Other
such machines based on socialist philosophy like
chompsky will be applauding the hitler socialist or
at least the stalin socialist from day one ,even
before they teamed up to invade Poland and start
WW II.
I'm claiming that the ability to make these
distinctions is a critical part of intelligence
and of ever person's philosophy. If your PF
[Personal Friend] can't hack it it will be
replaced, over time. It's not; will the PF have
a philosophy? since all intelligent entities do.
The question is what philosophy does it have?
a romantic realism philosophy of freedom like
Ayn Rand and President Reagan or marx
socialism like chompsky? and lenin?
Good seeing. JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Russell
> You are saying you want "absolute" methods.
Not at all.
> In a sense,
> nothing human is absolute because it depends on human
> decisions and these can change , be uncertain, be wrong
> and so forth.
Yes, and intelligent tools that assume this premise
should flourish symbiotically with humans. Tools
which do not, will have a hard time gaining a
foothold in their environment which is controlled
by our human nature.
> The Ayn Rand philosophy of my models has
> been designed to be as objectively true as possible
> while being human true.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is fine, but (imho) it has
very little to do with the nut and bolt tools that
I see being needed for Robust AI to emerge.
My passion is to be ~aware-of~ and
~contribute-to~ that emergence. Factoring a
particular philosophy into that emergence is not
something that I would choose, nor something
that I believe will catalyze the emergence.
What if there were specific philosophical
entailments connected with using a particular
brand of hammer? Me thinks that brand
would not sell well in the hardware stores.
Sorry, JD, I cannot subscribe to your agenda.
Jim Balter
Is this supposed to contradict something I wrote? It only indicates
your equivocations that seem designed to create disputes out of thin air:
>> >> > I like to use the camera as an analogy. The Xs are the photographs,
>> >> > and the P is the camera with which we take the Xs. The photographs
>> >> > have immediate temporary use. But we could toss them without losing
>> >> > much, for as long as we still have the camera we can take more up to
>> >> > date photographs whenever we need them. Therefore the camera, rather
>> >> > than the photographs are what we should value as knowledge. Or, in
>> >> > more conventional terms, it is perceptual capacity (broadly
>> >> > interpreted) rather than beliefs that should count as knowledge.
In your response above, you are referring to a
"capacity" that depends upon a memory (i.e., a state change) produced somehow
by books. But cameras undergo no significant state change in the process of
taking photographs. So whatever capacities you are referring to in your
analogy are not the same sort of capacities that you are referring to
as acquired by reading books. Yet, you accuse me of begging the question
and not comprehending what you write. I repeat what I said:
As so often, you speak vaguely, then expand the conversation, then accuse
people who didn't take you earlier to be saying what you said later of various
sorts of sins.
If you want to refer to what a person gains by reading a book as a "perceptual
capacity", I certainly won't dispute it, but I originally responded
to your camera analogy, which sets up a dichotomy between photographs,
which can be argued to carry information (you can argue about what it
takes to turn information into knowledge or whether it really is information
according to your humpty-dumpty definitions, but that's not the point),
and a camera, which does not in any way carry that information, since
the act of taking photographs, quite unlike the act of reading books,
does not produce a relevant state change in the camera. The problem
is not, as you accused, that I took your analogy too literally, but that
your analogy is wrong-headed and ill-conceived and doesn't illustrate
whatever point it is you're making. However, admitting such a fuck-up
does not seem to be in your character.
--
<J Q B>