patrick.net

Peter P says

HydroCabron says

There is such a thing as physical reality.

Prove it.

Easy.

Experiment 1: This upcoming tax year, instead of filing a form, tell the IRS to fuck off and don't give them any of your money. If there is no such thing as physical reality, then you won't go to jail.

Experiment 2: Walk into a police station, any police station. Pull out a gun and shout "I'm going to kill all you pigs." If there is no such thing as physical reality, then your consciousness won't cease to exist in a hailstorm of bullets, which are these tiny physical objects that damage a physical human body.

Experiment 3: Grow a beard, put on a turban, and practice your open carry rights while walking onto the White House lawn while screaming "death to the infidels". Again, if there is no such thing as physical reality, then there is no reason not to do this.

It's one thing to pontificate that the universe is all in your mind. It's quite another to actually believe that. The later is called mental illness.

JH says

Hahaha but I haven't gone blind...yet...

Be careful, Call It Crazy did go blind when the horse shot its load into his eye. Well, actually when the second horse shot its load into his other eye.

Dan8267 says

Experiment 1: This upcoming tax year, instead of filing a form, tell the IRS to fuck off and don't give them any of your money. If there is no such thing as physical reality, then you won't go to jail.

They'll just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, no big deal :-)

Peter P says

Such ontological statement is useless and unnecessary, just like anything metaphysical.

PP here wants to be at the forefront of AI but doesn't believe there is a universe.

Well it's settle then: nothing to think about, and in any case: no computer, no AI.

Rin says

They'll just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, no big deal :-)

That's only possible if physical, objective reality is the truth.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

They'll just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, no big deal :-)

That's only possible if physical, objective reality is the truth.

I'm a former STEM person so reality isn't an issue for me.

Stephen Hawking is England's best fantasy writer...the successor to Lewis Carroll.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Such ontological statement is useless and unnecessary, just like anything metaphysical.

PP here wants to be at the forefront of AI but doesn't believe there is a universe.

Well it's settle then: nothing to think about, and in any case: no computer, no AI.

I never claimed a universe does not exist. I am merely agnostic about the nature of the universe. Too many people have strong opinions about metaphysical constructs when such "knowledge" is decidedly undecidable.

Dan8267 says

That's only possible if physical, objective reality is the truth.

Like nothing happens to you in a dream?

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Rin says

Peter P says

Somehow I think scientists and technologists should behave more like prop-traders.

Considering that that's where the money is, many of us already have.

They should also approach science like they would in the trading world. Knowledge should be treated as if it is speculative and disposable.

Any prop-trader will tell you that one does not need durable truths to be profitable.

Peter P says

Any prop-trader will tell you that one does not need durable truths to be profitable.

Prop trading is about making money in the short term, to finance one's retirement. Once you no longer need to rely on a money making venue, then you can become more idealistic.

If one's a real scientist ... you do it for truth, justice, and the American way. The money angle doesn't matter when one's true.

Thus, when I'm independently wealthy and can do my own research, I'll tell everyone to f'ck off, because I don't need their approval, to get my grants renewed. They can ostracize me but I'll continually remind them that they're a bunch of b*tches for some academic or corporate entity.

In the end, I'll be proven right because they can't drive me into poverty like they did to Galileo, Tesla, and others.

And unlike a lot of Christian types, I won't rely on forgiveness. I'll continually humiliate my opponents and destroy their self-worth, their self-esteem. Since I don't need the money, anyone who plays that game will look like a fool in front of their friends and family. Most b*tches can't stand being insulted.

Rin says

If one's a real scientist ... you do it for truth, justice, and the American way. The money angle doesn't matter when one's true.

Definitely do it for your passion though. "Profits" need not be monetary.

Peter P says

Rin says

If one's a real scientist ... you do it for truth, justice, and the American way. The money angle doesn't matter when one's true.

Definitely do it for your passion though. "Profits" need not be monetary.

But also, you shouldn't care about what your peers think either.

If ppl disagree or put you down, what's wrong with a bit of attitude, "F'ck off". You see, in this world of ours, academicians and others are afraid of simply dropping a cinder block on someone else's head because of the fear of backlash.

If a lot of independently wealthy scientists simply stated their positions with well thought out arguments and experiments (and yes, telling others to f'ck off), then perhaps, science can be viable again.

So far, I see no one, willing to stick their necks out. against the establishment.

Rin says

But also, you shouldn't care about what your peers think either.

Yes. This is true for any endeavor. Of course, it is always nice to have "fuck you" money. :-)

Rin says

So far, I see no one, willing to stick their necks out.

This is why a future neo-feudalistic society may be interesting. We can go back to the patronage system.

Rin says

And unlike a lot of Christian types, I won't rely on forgiveness.

Well, sometimes apathy works better than either forgiveness or vengefulness.

Peter P says

Rin says

And unlike a lot of Christian types, I won't rely on forgiveness.

Well, sometimes apathy works better than either forgiveness or vengefulness.

It's not so much about vengeful but more about destroying someone else's self-esteem/self-worth, so that they can't come up again, preaching lies w/o realizing that they'd been out'ed before.

Rin says

It's not so much about vengeful but...

Even as an independently wealthy scientist you are still quite small against the herd of "institutionalized" researchers.

Won't you be happier focusing on your own work?

Peter P says

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Tell that to Einstein. He did exactly that.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Tell that to Einstein. He did exactly that.

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

Peter P says

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

If you believe AI is possible then you must accept that there is a tangible physical world, that a program can observe this world, and that knowledge is derived from this observation.

I say the sky is blue. That's knowledge. It resulted from direct observation and can verified with more observations.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

If you believe AI is possible then you must accept that there is a tangible physical world, that a program can observe this world, and that knowledge is derived from this observation.

I say the sky is blue. That's knowledge. It resulted from direct observation and can verified with more observations.

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

Note that I am merely agnostic about the nature of reality, just like everything metaphysical.

Heraclitusstudent says

I say the sky is blue. That's knowledge. It resulted from direct observation and can verified with more observations.

I wonder what Wittgenstein has to say about this.

Peter P says

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

A video stream needs perception.

If all you provide is data, then by definition this data is meaningless. i.e. you will not have a program that understands what is going on. See Searle. See the history of AI (Cyc for example). The data becomes knowledge once it is anchored in perception.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

A video stream needs perception.

If all you provide is data, then by definition this data is meaningless. i.e. you will not have a program that understands what is going on. See Searle. See the history of AI (Cyc for example). The data becomes knowledge once it is anchored in perception.

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Peter P says

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Sure, but the ontological layer is what is perceived.
There is no semantic outside of this.
AI would be pretty useless if not understanding the world in which we live. To understand it, it needs to perceive it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Sure, but the ontological layer is what is perceived.

There is no semantic outside of this.

AI would be pretty useless if not understanding the world in which we live. To understand it, it needs to perceive it.

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Peter P says

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Like what? Playing chess?

On second thought, a belief in machine perception does not even presuppose an objective reality.

Two possibilities:

1. machine perception is an extension to your perception (you see that the machine is seeing)

2. machines can be thought of having their own realities that somehow correspond to ours

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Like what? Playing chess?

;-)

Peter P says

1. machine perception is an extension to your perception (you see that the machine is seeing)

You can always see the machine senses as an extention of your own, but it doesn't change anything about what we said about AI.
The machine still needs to independently perceive a world. It doesn't just mean capturing a photo or video. It means use perception to form a model of this world and use this to 'think' about the world. It is 'intelligent' inasmuch as it makes relevant assertions about this world.

Peter P says

2. machines can be thought of having their own realities that somehow correspond to ours

This presupposes that there is a machine. This is meaningless outside a realist view of the world (realism).

You also have to explain how the machine world and your world just happen to be in sync.

Heraclitusstudent says

The machine still needs to independently perceive a world. It doesn't just mean capturing a photo or video. It means use perception to form a model of this world and use this to 'think' about the world. It is 'intelligent' inasmuch as it makes relevant assertions about this world.

Then it is no different from another person perceiving the world. :-)

And no, the machine does not have to form rigid models about the world. It will be a positivist/reductionist *only if* you program it so.

Heraclitusstudent says

You also have to explain how the machine world and your world just happen to be in sync.

Why? Your reality and mine are somewhat in sync. We all have our own biases, opinions, and narratives but I think the correspondence is there.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Tell that to Einstein. He did exactly that.

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula. Yet, GPS works. Peoples lives literally depend on working GPS. Emergency workers, drone strikes, commercial aviation all depend on GPS today.

In contrast, our country literally executes people based on lesser evidence. If only our court systems had as high of a standard for evidence as science does.

Again,

It's one thing to pontificate that the universe is all in your mind. It's quite another to actually believe that. The later is called mental illness.

Despite anything you say, you operate on the assumption that reality is objective.

Dan8267 says

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula. Yet, GPS works. Peoples lives literally depend on working GPS.

The Office (US) is one of the best TV shows ever!

JH says

Dan8267 says

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula. Yet, GPS works. Peoples lives literally depend on working GPS.

Of course, the error was human navigation in that case, not the physics and math of the GPS. And this, albeit fictional, case does illustrate that we all accept that reality is objective no matter what anyone pontificates.

Dan8267 says

Despite anything you say, you operate on the assumption that reality is objective.

Practically, yes.

Dan8267 says

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula.

Not proof. But observations. The "fact" that "reality" fits into formulas further illustrates that it is a matter of linguistics.

Dan8268 said: Tell that to Einstein.
Tell that to Heisenberg....

EBGuy says

Tell that to Heisenberg....

You mean Walter White?

Peter P says

Then it is no different from another person perceiving the world.

And we go back to "other person perceiving the world" implying that there is a world.

Peter P says

Why? Your reality and mine are somewhat in sync. We all have our own biases, opinions, and narratives but I think the correspondence is there.

Your argument is crumbling under its own weight: yes I can communicate with other people and they see more or less the same as I do, which makes it very likely there is a common reality being observed. Maybe there is no bias in perception, or opinions, but that's irrelevant: the point is there is a common reality.

The mere fact that you are posting means you assume I exist.

Peter P says

And no, the machine does not have to form rigid models about the world. It will be a positivist/reductionist *only if* you program it so.

A photo in a computer is a model of an image. Every higher level notions will also be some kind of model. A computer thinking about high level concepts means it has a model of these concepts.
Not sure what you mean by rigid. If anchored in perception, then by definition the model is fluid and changing. But there has to be a model.

Peter P says

Practically, yes.

And that's all that matters. Sure, you could be living in the Matrix and it could be in your best interest to dive off the Empire State Building, but you aren't going to make any decisions based on that premise. Nor are you going to act on the possibility that the only way to save the universe from popping out of existence is to suck Ozzy Osbourne's dick. Sure, sucking Ozzy's dick makes perfect sense if there's even a remote chance that the universe will pop out of existence if you don't, but you act on the premise that there isn't even a remote possibility of that happening.