3 ms·

I don't understand the point you're trying to make in this post.

Quekid5 7y ago
Yeah, I kind of went off the rails there, didn't I? My point was merely: How do you recgocnize a brain (and its very special cousisn the BB) at all? I wager it's just because you see a human before you. But if you really want to question things... then you're in for a very bleak time.
- blurps 7y ago
  Just like one can't disprove solipsism, one can only brush it aside as pragmatically useless. Just because a theory is internally consistent or even accurate, does not mean it is a good all-around theory: simplicity and elegance counts too. And having to agree on who is the solipsist among all figments is inelegant and an impossibly complex task. > According to the most extreme form of this view the only way by which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to be the machine and to feel oneself thinking. One could then describe these feelings to the world, but of course no one would be justified in taking any notice. Likewise according to this view the only way to know that a man thinks is to be that particular man. It is in fact the solipsist point of view. It may be the most logical view to hold but it makes communication of ideas difficult. A is liable to believe ‘A thinks but B does not’ whilst B believes ‘B thinks but A does not’. Instead of arguing continually over this point it is usual to have the polite convention that everyone thinks. -- Alan Turing
  - Quekid5 7y ago
    > Just like one can't disprove solipsism, one can only brush it aside as pragmatically useless. Agree. > Just because a theory is internally consistent or even accurate, does not mean it is a good all-around theory: simplicity and elegance counts too. And having to agree on who is the solipsist among all figments is inelegant and an impossibly complex task. Indeed not... but the true measure of a theory/hypothesis is how hard is it to vary to explain new facts. (I think this idea is due to Peter Deutsch, originally.) If you can change your explanation by saying things like "Ah... well, Aphrodite wouldn't do that because she's pregnant in Spring"... then I'm sure we can agree that it's a badly or unfounded theory of the world. This is actually an extremely high standard that very few pass.
    - blurps 7y ago
      Thanks. I'd never considered adaptiveness of a theory before and I like it. Perhaps adaptiveness at times emerges spontaneously from simplicity / regularization. But it is good to keep it in mind from the very start.

Yeah, I kind of went off the rails there, didn't I? My point was merely: How do you recgocnize a brain (and its very special cousisn the BB) at all? I wager it's just because you see a human before you. But if you really want to question things... then you're in for a very bleak time.

blurps 7y ago
Just like one can't disprove solipsism, one can only brush it aside as pragmatically useless. Just because a theory is internally consistent or even accurate, does not mean it is a good all-around theory: simplicity and elegance counts too. And having to agree on who is the solipsist among all figments is inelegant and an impossibly complex task. > According to the most extreme form of this view the only way by which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to be the machine and to feel oneself thinking. One could then describe these feelings to the world, but of course no one would be justified in taking any notice. Likewise according to this view the only way to know that a man thinks is to be that particular man. It is in fact the solipsist point of view. It may be the most logical view to hold but it makes communication of ideas difficult. A is liable to believe ‘A thinks but B does not’ whilst B believes ‘B thinks but A does not’. Instead of arguing continually over this point it is usual to have the polite convention that everyone thinks. -- Alan Turing
- Quekid5 7y ago
  > Just like one can't disprove solipsism, one can only brush it aside as pragmatically useless. Agree. > Just because a theory is internally consistent or even accurate, does not mean it is a good all-around theory: simplicity and elegance counts too. And having to agree on who is the solipsist among all figments is inelegant and an impossibly complex task. Indeed not... but the true measure of a theory/hypothesis is how hard is it to vary to explain new facts. (I think this idea is due to Peter Deutsch, originally.) If you can change your explanation by saying things like "Ah... well, Aphrodite wouldn't do that because she's pregnant in Spring"... then I'm sure we can agree that it's a badly or unfounded theory of the world. This is actually an extremely high standard that very few pass.
  - blurps 7y ago
    Thanks. I'd never considered adaptiveness of a theory before and I like it. Perhaps adaptiveness at times emerges spontaneously from simplicity / regularization. But it is good to keep it in mind from the very start.