3 ms·

They’re doing it within their frame of definitions which is largely evidence of constrained models leaving options unknown outside the realm of reason thereby e

They’re doing it within their frame of definitions which is largely evidence of constrained models leaving options unknown outside the realm of reason thereby excluding outliers of surprising potential.

the8472 6y ago
This sounds like critiquing science for not having all answers. Do you have a better approach?
- dfischer 6y ago
  My critique of is shaded by an irritation of within the both the "non-scientific" community that has been indoctrinated to take what "scientists" say as expert factual irrefutable statements and the "scientific" community that has become not what I'd call scientific and more close to dogma, orthodox, ideological, and or protectionist to break novel grounds. The scientific community is explicitly sanctioned by a centralized order of groups that endorse individuals within a process enforced upon anyone born. You either accept the game and fight to get into "science" or you're not a "scientist." I know plenty of individuals who are more-expert, more scientific than any scientist publishing papers funded by poorly designed incentive structures between education, research, monetary incentive, and survival. There's a lot of "clique politics" within the academia of science and it deeply troubles me. It's largely based on the university system being in control of it and the processes that contribute to that structure. Luckily it does seem to be getting more attention so that is good. Additionally the trend towards self-organization with the internet and wherever that leads us will most likely lead to new structures that allow more freedom of information within science to propagate without as much dependence on centralized entities being corrupted and tainting the scientific process. Outside of that, my critique here is largely based on various modes within Functionalism (theory of mind) > In an analogous manner, the role of mental states, such as belief and desire, is determined by the functional or causal role that is designated for them within our best scientific psychological theory. If some mental state which is postulated by folk psychology (e.g. hysteria) is determined not to have any fundamental role in cognitive psychological explanation, then that particular state may be considered not to exist . On the other hand, if it turns out that there are states which theoretical cognitive psychology posits as necessary for explanation of human behavior but which are not foreseen by ordinary folk psychological language, then these entities or states exist. I think the solve I'm looking for is required on both ends to communicate truth and "fuzziness" of truth. I'm not sure if English and current languages will ever trend towards this because every statement has a value of assigned truth based on existence/to-be. So short-term would be communicating the meme of this through the zeitgeist/noosphere and embed it within the culture - then potentially evolve towards a language that is fuzzy based.
  - the8472 6y ago
    This doesn't seem particularly helpful for the conversation here. Claiming something is self-aware because I say so or because I don't trust the state of research will hardly convince anyone. Random social media videos of animals exhibiting interesting behavior is not sufficient either, it is interesting but can be misattributed due to anthropomorphisation. And if you want to preach about better communicating uncertainty and statistics then I am afraid you're preaching to the choir in a particularly ranty sermon. Yes there are plenty of uncertainties, but those uncertainties cut both ways.
    - dfischer 6y ago
      Well I appreciate the audience for whatever its worth. The exchange added value. Thanks!
stouset 6y ago
If you have any better ideas, the scientific community would legitimately love to hear them. It’s not like nobody realizes that we don’t have flawless definitions for “self-aware”, “intelligent”, or even “life”. Or that the experiments we devise to test for these things come from our own experiences and bias, and might exclude creatures with novel presentations of these traits. But they’re the best we have for now. And smart people have spent countless lifetimes trying to improve upon what we have, attempting to broaden these categories and their testing apparatuses without expanding the definitions past the point of usefulness. So, yes, we get it. Everyone knows our tests and definitions aren’t perfect. We know they’ll exclude life forms with presentations of these traits that we haven’t even conceived of. Not only doesn’t science have all the answers yet, but it hasn’t even agreed on the wording of the questions yet. Pointing this out for the thirteen trillionth time just isn’t useful or insightful.
- dfischer 6y ago
  If it keeps hurting, it should keep being mentioned. When things that hurt are turned into silence, then things don't change that can stop hurt. I understand your point though, and I'm sorry if it came off as an attack. It's a criticism rooted in a few things. I typed up more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24601665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24601665
  - smallnamespace 6y ago
    I mean, would you go around reminding your friends of their shortcomings and then reminding them how helpful your feedback is? Sometimes people are well aware of the problems and are actively trying to solve them.
    - dfischer 6y ago
      I won’t remind them of my feedback but I’d never give up on telling them where they should improve.
  - stouset 6y ago
    Mentioning it would be helpful if this was something the relevant scientific community wasn’t already keenly aware of. “We don’t have all-encompassing definitions nor tests of self-awareness” isn’t something people have forgotten— it’s virtually the most well-known open question in the entire field! It’s like popping into a discussion of general relativity and “helpfully” chiming in with the criticism that “But we know GR must be wrong, since it’s incompatible with quantum mechanics.”

the8472 6y ago

This sounds like critiquing science for not having all answers. Do you have a better approach?

dfischer 6y ago
My critique of is shaded by an irritation of within the both the "non-scientific" community that has been indoctrinated to take what "scientists" say as expert factual irrefutable statements and the "scientific" community that has become not what I'd call scientific and more close to dogma, orthodox, ideological, and or protectionist to break novel grounds. The scientific community is explicitly sanctioned by a centralized order of groups that endorse individuals within a process enforced upon anyone born. You either accept the game and fight to get into "science" or you're not a "scientist." I know plenty of individuals who are more-expert, more scientific than any scientist publishing papers funded by poorly designed incentive structures between education, research, monetary incentive, and survival. There's a lot of "clique politics" within the academia of science and it deeply troubles me. It's largely based on the university system being in control of it and the processes that contribute to that structure. Luckily it does seem to be getting more attention so that is good. Additionally the trend towards self-organization with the internet and wherever that leads us will most likely lead to new structures that allow more freedom of information within science to propagate without as much dependence on centralized entities being corrupted and tainting the scientific process. Outside of that, my critique here is largely based on various modes within Functionalism (theory of mind) > In an analogous manner, the role of mental states, such as belief and desire, is determined by the functional or causal role that is designated for them within our best scientific psychological theory. If some mental state which is postulated by folk psychology (e.g. hysteria) is determined not to have any fundamental role in cognitive psychological explanation, then that particular state may be considered not to exist . On the other hand, if it turns out that there are states which theoretical cognitive psychology posits as necessary for explanation of human behavior but which are not foreseen by ordinary folk psychological language, then these entities or states exist. I think the solve I'm looking for is required on both ends to communicate truth and "fuzziness" of truth. I'm not sure if English and current languages will ever trend towards this because every statement has a value of assigned truth based on existence/to-be. So short-term would be communicating the meme of this through the zeitgeist/noosphere and embed it within the culture - then potentially evolve towards a language that is fuzzy based.
- the8472 6y ago
  This doesn't seem particularly helpful for the conversation here. Claiming something is self-aware because I say so or because I don't trust the state of research will hardly convince anyone. Random social media videos of animals exhibiting interesting behavior is not sufficient either, it is interesting but can be misattributed due to anthropomorphisation. And if you want to preach about better communicating uncertainty and statistics then I am afraid you're preaching to the choir in a particularly ranty sermon. Yes there are plenty of uncertainties, but those uncertainties cut both ways.
  - dfischer 6y ago
    Well I appreciate the audience for whatever its worth. The exchange added value. Thanks!

stouset 6y ago

If you have any better ideas, the scientific community would legitimately love to hear them. It’s not like nobody realizes that we don’t have flawless definitions for “self-aware”, “intelligent”, or even “life”. Or that the experiments we devise to test for these things come from our own experiences and bias, and might exclude creatures with novel presentations of these traits. But they’re the best we have for now. And smart people have spent countless lifetimes trying to improve upon what we have, attempting to broaden these categories and their testing apparatuses without expanding the definitions past the point of usefulness. So, yes, we get it. Everyone knows our tests and definitions aren’t perfect. We know they’ll exclude life forms with presentations of these traits that we haven’t even conceived of. Not only doesn’t science have all the answers yet, but it hasn’t even agreed on the wording of the questions yet. Pointing this out for the thirteen trillionth time just isn’t useful or insightful.

dfischer 6y ago
If it keeps hurting, it should keep being mentioned. When things that hurt are turned into silence, then things don't change that can stop hurt. I understand your point though, and I'm sorry if it came off as an attack. It's a criticism rooted in a few things. I typed up more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24601665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24601665
- smallnamespace 6y ago
  I mean, would you go around reminding your friends of their shortcomings and then reminding them how helpful your feedback is? Sometimes people are well aware of the problems and are actively trying to solve them.
  - dfischer 6y ago
    I won’t remind them of my feedback but I’d never give up on telling them where they should improve.
- stouset 6y ago
  Mentioning it would be helpful if this was something the relevant scientific community wasn’t already keenly aware of. “We don’t have all-encompassing definitions nor tests of self-awareness” isn’t something people have forgotten— it’s virtually the most well-known open question in the entire field! It’s like popping into a discussion of general relativity and “helpfully” chiming in with the criticism that “But we know GR must be wrong, since it’s incompatible with quantum mechanics.”