4 ms·

Every time I start writing a response to this, I can't help but feel it will simply be misinterpreted. I thought my original response was pretty succinct and c

by Sakes 11y ago

Every time I start writing a response to this, I can't help but feel it will simply be misinterpreted. I thought my original response was pretty succinct and clear. If you'd like to continue, please select one discrepancy and I'll be happy to discuss it further with you.

nevinera 11y ago
Our disagreement may be definitional - your original response was succinct and clear, but did not make an argument, merely an assertion. A) I see no reason that 'being made up of units which are intelligent' ought to classify a system as intelligent. B) I see no way in which you can usefully talk about anything without intentional behavior as a 'maximizing intelligence'. You can't call 'capitalism' the 'driver of our economy' for the same reason you can't call 'ecology' the 'driver of natural selection' or 'conflict' the 'driver of our military conquests'. You are conflating a system with the units in the system, and talking about an ecology of intelligent units as if it is satisfying some behavioral utility function. 'Capitalism' doesn't have a utility function, because it doesn't have decision-making capacity, which is pretty much the only prerequisite for intelligent behavior. It doesn't drive our economy, it is our economy. The actors in the system are corporations and humans (and governments, unions, and a few other united organizational structures), therefore those are the things which can exhibit intelligence.
- Sakes 11y ago
  Thanks so much for responding. I agree that a significant cause of our disagreement is definitional. I'll get back to you either later this evening or tomorrow with a response that your comment deserves. For now, there is billable work to be done.
- Sakes 11y ago
  I hope you don't mind, but I'm only going to address one thing right now. If the conversation continues, I will continue to discuss more with you. Lets start with (A). You are correct, the way I described it does not explicitly explain how it is intelligent. Lets adopt the strictest definition of intelligence which is the ability to predict. When I refer to capitalism here, I'll be referring to capitalism implemented, not the theory. Capitalism is intelligent. It is made up of people which are intelligent. These components are at times working together, and at times working against each other. Much like your conscious mind and subconscious mind. Conflicts are resolved in the market or through the state via legislation and trials. The results of components working together and resolving their conflicts is how capitalism has decided to behave. Having behavior is not sufficient for intelligence. A virus has behavior but is not intelligent. So does a capitalist system make predictions? One example should be sufficient to make the answer to this question yes. If I can show that a capitalist system makes predictions, then I will have proven that it is intelligent. Lets use America for this example. One thing American Capitalism seeks is to mute the highs / lows of the inherit booms and busts in-order to increase the level of stability of the economy. The Fed watches the rates of lending / borrowing to predict bubbles and raises interest rates to slow / stop the growth of bubbles. Once it has popped, and lending/borrowing slows, the Fed then lowers interest rates to promote lending / borrowing. I know this is not new info for you. I just wanted to be thorough in my response. So American Capitalism predicts bubbles and acts on those predictions. Thus, intelligent. You might say the Fed isn't capitalism. Which would be true. But your brain isn't you yet it is the component which makes you intelligent. The Fed is part of America's capitalist system. You might say that capitalism does not involve government. Which I would say, pure capitalism doesn't involve government, but the active capitalist systems we have today do.
  - nevinera 11y ago
    >If I can show that a capitalist system makes predictions, then I will have proven that it is intelligent. Your example applies perfectly well to a localized ecosystem. I can for example show that a surge in the population of rabbits on a small island 'predicts' a surge of the population of their main predator. That's the island ecosystem predicting a population bubble and then acts on those predictions. Intelligent? That's beside the point though, because your example didn't show 'capitalism' making a prediction, it showed the Fed making a prediction. The federal reserve is a functional organization, an entity with goals and intentional behavior. The Fed is a perfect example of an entity that can demonstrate intelligent behavior It is indeed 'part of America's capitalist system' - again, you fall back on the assertion that a system is intelligent if the actors in it are intelligent, the only obvious source of our disagreement. By your logic, you'd have to consider a baseball game a functional intelligence, a three-legged race a maximizing entity. Systems of intelligences are not automatically intelligent. It is possible for them to be so; corporations qualify, governments qualify, unions qualify. In order to have intentional behavior, an entity has to be self-coordinated; it has to be able to decide to perform an action, and then perform that action. A market has no coordination, and has no decision-making power - markets are inherently decentralized in that way. If you choose to define 'intelligence' such that a thing which cannot make decisions or choices, has no goals or intentions, and has no self-impelled behavior can qualify, then your definition of the word is fundamentally confusing to me, and I'm not really interested in trying to puzzle out what you mean by it.
    - Sakes 11y ago
      Nice, you're back. > I can for example show that a surge in the population of rabbits on a small island 'predicts' a surge of the population of their main predator. That's the island ecosystem predicting a population bubble and then acts on those predictions. Intelligent? So I am assuming you are claiming to be part of the ecosystem? > That's beside the point though, because your example didn't show 'capitalism' making a prediction, it showed the Fed making a prediction. Not besides the point, it attacks a necessary part of my argument. Anyways, you have made some good points. I'll give it some thought and get back to you.

by Sakes 11y ago

nevinera 11y ago

Our disagreement may be definitional - your original response was succinct and clear, but did not make an argument, merely an assertion. A) I see no reason that 'being made up of units which are intelligent' ought to classify a system as intelligent. B) I see no way in which you can usefully talk about anything without intentional behavior as a 'maximizing intelligence'. You can't call 'capitalism' the 'driver of our economy' for the same reason you can't call 'ecology' the 'driver of natural selection' or 'conflict' the 'driver of our military conquests'. You are conflating a system with the units in the system, and talking about an ecology of intelligent units as if it is satisfying some behavioral utility function. 'Capitalism' doesn't have a utility function, because it doesn't have decision-making capacity, which is pretty much the only prerequisite for intelligent behavior. It doesn't drive our economy, it is our economy. The actors in the system are corporations and humans (and governments, unions, and a few other united organizational structures), therefore those are the things which can exhibit intelligence.

Sakes 11y ago
Thanks so much for responding. I agree that a significant cause of our disagreement is definitional. I'll get back to you either later this evening or tomorrow with a response that your comment deserves. For now, there is billable work to be done.
Sakes 11y ago
I hope you don't mind, but I'm only going to address one thing right now. If the conversation continues, I will continue to discuss more with you. Lets start with (A). You are correct, the way I described it does not explicitly explain how it is intelligent. Lets adopt the strictest definition of intelligence which is the ability to predict. When I refer to capitalism here, I'll be referring to capitalism implemented, not the theory. Capitalism is intelligent. It is made up of people which are intelligent. These components are at times working together, and at times working against each other. Much like your conscious mind and subconscious mind. Conflicts are resolved in the market or through the state via legislation and trials. The results of components working together and resolving their conflicts is how capitalism has decided to behave. Having behavior is not sufficient for intelligence. A virus has behavior but is not intelligent. So does a capitalist system make predictions? One example should be sufficient to make the answer to this question yes. If I can show that a capitalist system makes predictions, then I will have proven that it is intelligent. Lets use America for this example. One thing American Capitalism seeks is to mute the highs / lows of the inherit booms and busts in-order to increase the level of stability of the economy. The Fed watches the rates of lending / borrowing to predict bubbles and raises interest rates to slow / stop the growth of bubbles. Once it has popped, and lending/borrowing slows, the Fed then lowers interest rates to promote lending / borrowing. I know this is not new info for you. I just wanted to be thorough in my response. So American Capitalism predicts bubbles and acts on those predictions. Thus, intelligent. You might say the Fed isn't capitalism. Which would be true. But your brain isn't you yet it is the component which makes you intelligent. The Fed is part of America's capitalist system. You might say that capitalism does not involve government. Which I would say, pure capitalism doesn't involve government, but the active capitalist systems we have today do.
- nevinera 11y ago
  >If I can show that a capitalist system makes predictions, then I will have proven that it is intelligent. Your example applies perfectly well to a localized ecosystem. I can for example show that a surge in the population of rabbits on a small island 'predicts' a surge of the population of their main predator. That's the island ecosystem predicting a population bubble and then acts on those predictions. Intelligent? That's beside the point though, because your example didn't show 'capitalism' making a prediction, it showed the Fed making a prediction. The federal reserve is a functional organization, an entity with goals and intentional behavior. The Fed is a perfect example of an entity that can demonstrate intelligent behavior It is indeed 'part of America's capitalist system' - again, you fall back on the assertion that a system is intelligent if the actors in it are intelligent, the only obvious source of our disagreement. By your logic, you'd have to consider a baseball game a functional intelligence, a three-legged race a maximizing entity. Systems of intelligences are not automatically intelligent. It is possible for them to be so; corporations qualify, governments qualify, unions qualify. In order to have intentional behavior, an entity has to be self-coordinated; it has to be able to decide to perform an action, and then perform that action. A market has no coordination, and has no decision-making power - markets are inherently decentralized in that way. If you choose to define 'intelligence' such that a thing which cannot make decisions or choices, has no goals or intentions, and has no self-impelled behavior can qualify, then your definition of the word is fundamentally confusing to me, and I'm not really interested in trying to puzzle out what you mean by it.
  - Sakes 11y ago
    Nice, you're back. > I can for example show that a surge in the population of rabbits on a small island 'predicts' a surge of the population of their main predator. That's the island ecosystem predicting a population bubble and then acts on those predictions. Intelligent? So I am assuming you are claiming to be part of the ecosystem? > That's beside the point though, because your example didn't show 'capitalism' making a prediction, it showed the Fed making a prediction. Not besides the point, it attacks a necessary part of my argument. Anyways, you have made some good points. I'll give it some thought and get back to you.