Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by A_Seagull »

Sculptor wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 10:17 pm
A_Seagull wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 8:12 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:13 am

Is this an objection, or just an observation?
It is an observation. The practice of philosophy is little more than a parlour game.
I do not think anything I said would engender that response, no.
I wasn't meaning you personally.[/quote]
Nothing wrong with opinions. One of Philosophy's greatest achivements is offering methods for knowing what questions make sense; how to ask questions; what the answers might mean; what is it like to ask them; ".
And without explicit foundations and logic, these too are all just opinions.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

A_Seagull wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:39 am
I wasn't meaning you personally.
Nothing wrong with opinions. One of Philosophy's greatest achivements is offering methods for knowing what questions make sense; how to ask questions; what the answers might mean; what is it like to ask them; ".
And without explicit foundations and logic, these too are all just opinions.
But philosophy invented foundational logic, which are quite explicit.
What philosophy also shows us is the liits of logic; that any and all conclusions are limited by the premises upon which they are founded. This is NOT an opinion and neither is any part of the list I gave you.
There is NOTHING wrong with "just" an opinion.
If you cannot see the value philosophy can bring why are you posting on this forum.
If you want certainly - go and ask a priest, and visit a church. You have buckets of certainty.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by A_Seagull »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:16 am
A_Seagull wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:39 am
I wasn't meaning you personally.
Nothing wrong with opinions. One of Philosophy's greatest achivements is offering methods for knowing what questions make sense; how to ask questions; what the answers might mean; what is it like to ask them; ".
And without explicit foundations and logic, these too are all just opinions.
But philosophy invented foundational logic, which are quite explicit.
What philosophy also shows us is the liits of logic; that any and all conclusions are limited by the premises upon which they are founded. This is NOT an opinion and neither is any part of the list I gave you.
There is NOTHING wrong with "just" an opinion.
If you cannot see the value philosophy can bring why are you posting on this forum.
If you want certainly - go and ask a priest, and visit a church. You have buckets of certainty.
And if you want to learn some philosophy, try taking off the blinkers.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

A_Seagull wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 10:55 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:16 am
A_Seagull wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:39 am
I wasn't meaning you personally.
Nothing wrong with opinions. One of Philosophy's greatest achivements is offering methods for knowing what questions make sense; how to ask questions; what the answers might mean; what is it like to ask them; ".
And without explicit foundations and logic, these too are all just opinions.
But philosophy invented foundational logic, which are quite explicit.
What philosophy also shows us is the liits of logic; that any and all conclusions are limited by the premises upon which they are founded. This is NOT an opinion and neither is any part of the list I gave you.
There is NOTHING wrong with "just" an opinion.
If you cannot see the value philosophy can bring why are you posting on this forum.
If you want certainly - go and ask a priest, and visit a church. You have buckets of certainty.
And if you want to learn some philosophy, try taking off the blinkers.
I am way ahead of you.
Belinda
Posts: 8031
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Belinda »

uwot wrote:
Latour is famous for the Actor-Network Theory, which is probably most famous for being batshit crazy, but is really just taking the empirical imperative to its natural conclusion and simply treating everything in a 'laboratory setting' as an equal object of observation - so a teat pipette has as much of a rôle as a professor of chemistry. What they demonstrated, and what anyone who spends any time looking at how scientists actually operate quickly discovers, is that scientists are human beings too - some are brilliant, some are bonkers; some are diligent, some are lazy; some are virtuous, some are corrupt, you know - human. In effect, the hard of thinking have inverted 'All scientists are human' and falsely deduced that all humans are scientists - that their fruitloopery is as valid as things said by people who know what they are talking about. And of course the internet has given nut jobs a platform to share their utter bollocks, such as this forum.
If relativity is taken for granted, then power relations are the key to the different statuses of a teat pipette and a professor of chemistry. The latter has more power of choice than a technological device. True, few men are profs of chemistry. Society empowers some men more than it empowers others. There is a good reason for this which is that power differentials function to support the society until they don't.

Scientific paradigms , like eminent professors, powerful until they aren't. In the advent of AI acquiring too much power for any society to benefit from, it is a multi-cutural concern to curb AI, pronto!
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by owl of Minerva »

""Scientific paradigms , like eminent professors, powerful until they aren't. In the advent of AI acquiring too much power for any society to benefit from, it is a multi-cultural concern to curb AI, pronto! "
Top
.........................................

AI is a big question mark. Will it use the faculty of intelligence directly without the intermediate function of reason, and if it does not have an affective (feeling) nature, how will that work out. The Buddha presumably was one with intelligence (buddhi) but he also had an affective nature. To counterbalance intelligence he emphasized compassion. AI may be able to access a universal paradigm, bypassing the competing paradigms of science, if that is the case it could either be a plus or a minus for humanity. What AI would do with its paradigm is not predictable, nor is it predictable how humans might react to it.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:23 amIf relativity is taken for granted, then power relations are the key to the different statuses of a teat pipette and a professor of chemistry. The latter has more power of choice than a technological device. True, few men are profs of chemistry. Society empowers some men more than it empowers others. There is a good reason for this which is that power differentials function to support the society until they don't.
That's true of course. I'm not an expert on ANT, but as I understand, it is really a method observing and then theorising about motives, rather than assume any to start with. Which, as you point out, is exactly the position we are likely to find ourselves in quite soon:
Belinda wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:23 amScientific paradigms , like eminent professors, powerful until they aren't. In the advent of AI acquiring too much power for any society to benefit from, it is a multi-cutural concern to curb AI, pronto!
While we can be fairly confident of the choices a teat pipette will make, we have no idea what choices AI will make. Unfortunately we know only too well the choice that some human beings will make: as always they will want to exploit the military potential of AI. Knowing this, there is a strong case that the best defence is development of more powerful AI. And AI being so clever, development of AI will be handed over to AI. While the mutually assured destruction offered by nuclear fission and fusion is still controlled by humans, with AI, it may not be our finger on the button.
Belinda
Posts: 8031
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Belinda »

Uwot wrote:
While we can be fairly confident of the choices a teat pipette will make, we have no idea what choices AI will make. Unfortunately we know only too well the choice that some human beings will make: as always they will want to exploit the military potential of AI. Knowing this, there is a strong case that the best defence is development of more powerful AI. And AI being so clever, development of AI will be handed over to AI. While the mutually assured destruction offered by nuclear fission and fusion is still controlled by humans, with AI, it may not be our finger on the button.
AI , the paradigm to end all paradigm change. What is it with AI that it lacks sympathy? At least one paradigm, the germ theory of disease,included empathy as understood implicitly by how germs colonies are 'motivated' by quest for power. NB motives are conceptualised only by means of symbolic systems which of course teat pipettes and germs lack.



AI is itself symbolic system. If self interest were to be included in the system of each individual AI machine then each AI machine would strive for power over others . Even in the absence of qualia then at least AI would have enlightened self interest. At present pipettes and AI machines are not selves.

I don't understand how a machine with a memory and learns from its experience is not a subject of experience. Unless of course not only quest for relative power but also qualia are components of the feeling of self.

Maybe AI at present is totalitarian because it lacks information about relativity and how relativity is the base of life on Earth, and existence itself.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:57 amI don't understand how a machine with a memory and learns from its experience is not a subject of experience.
I agree. I'm not really sure what people mean by AI. As I understand it, the Turing test requires only that a being with human intelligence be persuaded that a non-human has the same sort of intelligence. Given that psychopaths can learn strategies that give the perception of empathy, it shouldn't surprise us that unfeeling machines can give the impression of feeling.
Belinda
Posts: 8031
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Belinda »

uwot wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:45 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:57 amI don't understand how a machine with a memory and learns from its experience is not a subject of experience.
I agree. I'm not really sure what people mean by AI. As I understand it, the Turing test requires only that a being with human intelligence be persuaded that a non-human has the same sort of intelligence. Given that psychopaths can learn strategies that give the perception of empathy, it shouldn't surprise us that unfeeling machines can give the impression of feeling.
I don't expect psychopaths or machines to feel a quale like affection. But I expect psychopaths and machines can understand and act upon enlightened self interest.

Perhaps, unlike psychopaths, machines are clones each of the other whereas people and other animals who can feel affection do so because while possessing powers of reasoning they also feel the specific quale of affection for beings that are different from self. Look at dogs for instance.

Maybe the next scientific paradigm will link together social and natural sciences.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by uwot »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:10 amI don't expect psychopaths or machines to feel a quale like affection. But I expect psychopaths and machines can understand and act upon enlightened self interest.
I'm trying to get my head around this. It seems to me that there is some sort of Bell-curve with affection at one end and processing power at the other (maybe a Venn diagram). Anyway, some people are not very bright, but very affectionate; and some people are very smart, but cold and calculating. Does affection or empathy have no role in intelligence?
Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:10 amPerhaps, unlike psychopaths, machines are clones each of the other whereas people and other animals who can feel affection do so because while possessing powers of reasoning they also feel the specific quale of affection for beings that are different from self. Look at dogs for instance.
Most people would agree that dogs have a level of intelligence. I just wonder if any one has any idea about what will distinguish AI from the number crunching machines that can already fool us at least some of the time.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8483
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:42 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:10 amI don't expect psychopaths or machines to feel a quale like affection. But I expect psychopaths and machines can understand and act upon enlightened self interest.
I'm trying to get my head around this. It seems to me that there is some sort of Bell-curve with affection at one end and processing power at the other (maybe a Venn diagram). Anyway, some people are not very bright, but very affectionate; and some people are very smart, but cold and calculating. Does affection or empathy have no role in intelligence?
If this is helpful.
There is such a thing as quanitfied emotional intelligence. But I think no specific role outside its own sphere. People lacking in emotion, tend to look stupid because they do not "see" or understand the emotions of others, as well as a person that can share the emotion.
Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:10 amPerhaps, unlike psychopaths, machines are clones each of the other whereas people and other animals who can feel affection do so because while possessing powers of reasoning they also feel the specific quale of affection for beings that are different from self. Look at dogs for instance.
Most people would agree that dogs have a level of intelligence. I just wonder if any one has any idea about what will distinguish AI from the number crunching machines that can already fool us at least some of the time.
Machines might be programmed to recognise the outward signs of emotions, and be programmed to respond to them appropriately. Psychopaths can learn these behaviours in much the same way to integrate themselves into society. No one is absolutely psychopathic, and even psychopaths seek friends, but I understand that it is more about learning to act to get them by mimickry, rather than feeling the need.
To hold an emotional position requires more than just neurons and memory, there are hormonal elements too and I suppose that such hormones as oxytocin, which I seem to remember has been shown to be low or lacking in those identified as psychopathic and sociopathic.
For a non-human machine such hormones are useless.
I suggest, that if you cannot understand the difference between feeling the need for a friend, and wanting a friend for a purpose then you might have psychopthic tendancies. This is not as unusual as you might think. Most have ordinary jobs and do not persue criminal or violent activities.
Belinda
Posts: 8031
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:04 am
uwot wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:42 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:10 amI don't expect psychopaths or machines to feel a quale like affection. But I expect psychopaths and machines can understand and act upon enlightened self interest.
I'm trying to get my head around this. It seems to me that there is some sort of Bell-curve with affection at one end and processing power at the other (maybe a Venn diagram). Anyway, some people are not very bright, but very affectionate; and some people are very smart, but cold and calculating. Does affection or empathy have no role in intelligence?
If this is helpful.
There is such a thing as quanitfied emotional intelligence. But I think no specific role outside its own sphere. People lacking in emotion, tend to look stupid because they do not "see" or understand the emotions of others, as well as a person that can share the emotion.
Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:10 amPerhaps, unlike psychopaths, machines are clones each of the other whereas people and other animals who can feel affection do so because while possessing powers of reasoning they also feel the specific quale of affection for beings that are different from self. Look at dogs for instance.
Most people would agree that dogs have a level of intelligence. I just wonder if any one has any idea about what will distinguish AI from the number crunching machines that can already fool us at least some of the time.
Machines might be programmed to recognise the outward signs of emotions, and be programmed to respond to them appropriately. Psychopaths can learn these behaviours in much the same way to integrate themselves into society. No one is absolutely psychopathic, and even psychopaths seek friends, but I understand that it is more about learning to act to get them by mimickry, rather than feeling the need.
To hold an emotional position requires more than just neurons and memory, there are hormonal elements too and I suppose that such hormones as oxytocin, which I seem to remember has been shown to be low or lacking in those identified as psychopathic and sociopathic.
For a non-human machine such hormones are useless.
I suggest, that if you cannot understand the difference between feeling the need for a friend, and wanting a friend for a purpose then you might have psychopthic tendancies. This is not as unusual as you might think. Most have ordinary jobs and do not persue criminal or violent activities.
I think you are right. To want a friend for a purpose is (enlightened ) self interest whereas to want a friend , as seems likely due to normal oxytocin levels, is affection.

I also lean towards the need for the subject of experience as a unique individual, as distinct from a behavioural clone. The subjective is probably entirely necessary for people to relate properly to each other as different and unique beings. I wonder if ants and bees function perfectly well without benefit of oxytocin, as ants and bees do not seem to learn new behavioural paradigms.
Post Reply