4 ms·

You're still performing meaningless operations on meaningless symbols. All you've done is picked a subset that looks - to you - as if it's a little less meaning

You're still performing meaningless operations on meaningless symbols. All you've done is picked a subset that looks - to you - as if it's a little less meaningless. It's a problem of epistemology, not logic. Logic itself is subjective. We have a set of heuristics we use to decide if something is "true" in a mathematical and scientific sense. But fundamentally they rely on concepts like "truth" and "logic" which we experience subjectively. We label a certain set of psychological experiences "true", a certain related set "logical", and a different related set "experimentally valid." But all we really have is a set of experiences that are subjectively consistent (more or less) and shared. IMO it's quite likely we're missing a lot. Far from having god-like insight into the ultimate nature of truth and reality our minds are actually quite small and limited. Many relationships, operations, and elements of objective reality are literally invisible to us because they're far too complex for us to imagine, never mind experience and understand. This matters because potentially AI may not have the same limitations. We're just getting started with associative cognitive modelling based on ML data compression as opposed to mechanical machine building - which is what traditional code is. That's a fundamental difference of approach, with the potential to work with a much larger conceptual and symbolic space than we're capable of. I suspect we'll see some quite interesting outcomes.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
> Logic itself is subjective Not really, by your logic (heh) everything is subjective: including your own argument about logic being subjective (which in turn uses logic).
- ukj 3y ago
  Sounds like you are on the path towards understanding that what we call “objectivity” is an inter-subjective construct.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    I know you are being sarcastic, but this isn't a strange concept and this something philosophers have known for generations. Let us say you claim "Nothing is objective". Then it doesn't take a genius to assert that your claim "Nothing is objective" isn't objective.
    - ukj 3y ago
      I have no idea what your metric for "strangeness" is. Using similar reasoning we can also assert that "The speed of light is objective" is not an objective claim. And we can further assert that both the inner and outer statements are true without arriving at a contradiction. It doesn't take a genius, merely a very thick skin and a grasp of contextuality, to hold this perfectly reasonable conclusion in a society dominated by naive understanding of non-contradiction. Objectivity, being an unattainable philosophical ideal, it doesn't prevent us from using the term in more pragmatic/cultural/inter-subjective sense. A white lie - if you will - that only a determined pedant would scrutinize to such philosophical extent. Just as well, such overt pedantry deserves mockery and contempt.
- calf 3y ago
  This problem is why I strongly dislike social relativism arguments. It's sloppy reasoning and I can't make heads or tails of what they're asserting. I also disagree with the interviewee for this reason, I think his argument is also sloppy, he is conflating two different issues. (One would think I'm some kind of conservative; I'm a gay, Asian American leftist who happens to have a STEM background, and so I hate reading about "socially constructed" arguments--which is what this article is a variation of.)
  - ukj 3y ago
    OK, so you dislike relativistic arguments. Relative to which objective standard for reasoning are you asserting that any given argument is "sloppy"? It's a turning point in one's life when we come to acknowle that we don't have to like the fact that relativism is true.
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      For literal centuries we have known absolute epistemological relativism is childishly easy to self refute.
      - ukj 3y ago
        Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke). In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”? This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent? I find it mildly ironic that I have to explain evaluation (and it’s dependency on a meta theory) on a forum full of computer scientists…
        cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        Let’s think in nano baby steps: A. In what system are you presenting your argument here in your comment? Is that system objective or subjective. B. If subjective, then I declare your argument to be false for me. End of story. C. If objective, then congrats, you refuted yourself. I find it wildly ironic that you condescend and resort to veiled ad hominem on top of a Logic/Philo 101 fallacy known for literal centuries. Also, the statement “there is an objective system X” doesn’t imply “we fully know the system X” I represent scientists and logicians and philosophers that have known this for, once again, centuries. People call X background or classical logic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  Logic is subjective because it takes a lot of focused effort to align it with reality.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Here we go in circles. Is your statement about logic subjective or objective? Do you use logic to arrive at that conclusion?
mistermann 3y ago
> Logic itself is subjective. We have a set of heuristics we use to decide if something is "true" in a mathematical and scientific sense. But fundamentally they rely on concepts like "truth" and "logic" which we experience subjectively. I agree that it is this way, but does it have to be? Is it physically necessary to perceive defection from this dilemma as "pedantic" (see below, how surprising!), or might it only be culturally necessary? Take your claim for example: you are not distinguishing between logic itself and our experience of logic. You are objectively correct that there is in fact no distinction on one level (experience), but that is not the only level that exists. How are questions of this nature (essentially: existence) answered in the physical realm, where we have high levels of skill and experience?

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

> Logic itself is subjective Not really, by your logic (heh) everything is subjective: including your own argument about logic being subjective (which in turn uses logic).

ukj 3y ago
Sounds like you are on the path towards understanding that what we call “objectivity” is an inter-subjective construct.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  I know you are being sarcastic, but this isn't a strange concept and this something philosophers have known for generations. Let us say you claim "Nothing is objective". Then it doesn't take a genius to assert that your claim "Nothing is objective" isn't objective.
  - ukj 3y ago
    I have no idea what your metric for "strangeness" is. Using similar reasoning we can also assert that "The speed of light is objective" is not an objective claim. And we can further assert that both the inner and outer statements are true without arriving at a contradiction. It doesn't take a genius, merely a very thick skin and a grasp of contextuality, to hold this perfectly reasonable conclusion in a society dominated by naive understanding of non-contradiction. Objectivity, being an unattainable philosophical ideal, it doesn't prevent us from using the term in more pragmatic/cultural/inter-subjective sense. A white lie - if you will - that only a determined pedant would scrutinize to such philosophical extent. Just as well, such overt pedantry deserves mockery and contempt.
calf 3y ago
This problem is why I strongly dislike social relativism arguments. It's sloppy reasoning and I can't make heads or tails of what they're asserting. I also disagree with the interviewee for this reason, I think his argument is also sloppy, he is conflating two different issues. (One would think I'm some kind of conservative; I'm a gay, Asian American leftist who happens to have a STEM background, and so I hate reading about "socially constructed" arguments--which is what this article is a variation of.)
- ukj 3y ago
  OK, so you dislike relativistic arguments. Relative to which objective standard for reasoning are you asserting that any given argument is "sloppy"? It's a turning point in one's life when we come to acknowle that we don't have to like the fact that relativism is true.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    For literal centuries we have known absolute epistemological relativism is childishly easy to self refute.
    - ukj 3y ago
      Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke). In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”? This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent? I find it mildly ironic that I have to explain evaluation (and it’s dependency on a meta theory) on a forum full of computer scientists…
      - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        Let’s think in nano baby steps: A. In what system are you presenting your argument here in your comment? Is that system objective or subjective. B. If subjective, then I declare your argument to be false for me. End of story. C. If objective, then congrats, you refuted yourself. I find it wildly ironic that you condescend and resort to veiled ad hominem on top of a Logic/Philo 101 fallacy known for literal centuries. Also, the statement “there is an objective system X” doesn’t imply “we fully know the system X” I represent scientists and logicians and philosophers that have known this for, once again, centuries. People call X background or classical logic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
Logic is subjective because it takes a lot of focused effort to align it with reality.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Here we go in circles. Is your statement about logic subjective or objective? Do you use logic to arrive at that conclusion?

mistermann 3y ago

> Logic itself is subjective. We have a set of heuristics we use to decide if something is "true" in a mathematical and scientific sense. But fundamentally they rely on concepts like "truth" and "logic" which we experience subjectively. I agree that it is this way, but does it have to be? Is it physically necessary to perceive defection from this dilemma as "pedantic" (see below, how surprising!), or might it only be culturally necessary? Take your claim for example: you are not distinguishing between logic itself and our experience of logic. You are objectively correct that there is in fact no distinction on one level (experience), but that is not the only level that exists. How are questions of this nature (essentially: existence) answered in the physical realm, where we have high levels of skill and experience?