Failure of "I".

[uwot]

In actual fact it is very ego-centric (which is hugely problematic).

Well, yes as Descartes put it, 'I think, therefore I am', it is ego-centric, which is why I said you have to strangle it a bit.

It pre-supposes the mind comes first.

No it doesn't. The 'mind' is the last thing that Descartes doubted and the only thing he felt he couldn't. You clearly believe that people are wiser for reading links, so here's one for you: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm

Ignorant of the fact that you are a product of the universe. And evolution. And other humans.

It ignores time and causality.

Granted all those are 'facts', but the point that Descartes was making is that all of it could be illusory. All that is undoubtable is the current perception. It is a ridiculously solipsistic view that no sane human being would hold, but you cannot prove it wrong. The only assertion that can be proven wrong is 'There is no experience'; you prove it wrong by asserting it.

[TimeSeeker]

No it doesn't. The 'mind' is the last thing that Descartes doubted and the only thing he felt he couldn't.

So he ran out of skepticism? Do you think in 400 years since Descartes (and the scientific revolution in the last 200) we have found some errors in his approach?

you cannot prove it wrong. The only assertion that can be proven wrong is 'There is no experience'; you prove it wrong by asserting it.

OK! Challenge accepted.

"Cogito ergo sum" in propositional logic is: A ⇒ B

And all I need to do is ask: Can you think? What does it mean to think? Is A true? Is there more than one way to think? Is there right and wrong way to think? if you can't think (A is false), does it mean you don't exist? How much of your brain can we surgically remove before you lose the ability to think? Or the ability to speak and write?

Well. Thinking is an activity - it's a process. A verb. Descartes couldn't express system dynamics (Calculus - change over time) because Newton hadn't invented it yet. So he couldn't express thinking in anything but propositional logic. He only had deduction at his disposal because induction and statistical mechanics was a few centuries into the future. In 2018 we have much more tools. So surely this is more accurate: f(x) ⇒ B

Can you define f(x) (thinking) ? It is an anonymous function. A black box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

How does it work? What does it mean to think? Well shit. Minds have many functions. So more broadly I compute therefore I am! f(x) ⇒ B
There is no word for "compute" in Latin. Obviously. They didn't have computers 400 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

Welcome to the 21st century. Philosophy is dead. We have science now. And we know that “minds” are properties of complex brains. We can also build artificial minds - using computers. And we are certain that "Cogito ergo sum" (A ⇒ B) was a HUGE and insufficient over-simplification.

Computer scientists call this failure mode of logic GIGO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out)

[uwot]

No it doesn't. The 'mind' is the last thing that Descartes doubted and the only thing he felt he couldn't.

So he ran out of skepticism?

No. As I'm sure you read in the link I posted, he ran out of what it is coherent to be skeptical about.

Do you think in 400 years since Descartes (and the scientific revolution in the last 200) we have found some errors in his approach?

As it happens, I am writing an article for the magazine on that theme as we speak. Basically, there are three things that science aims to provide: A logical explanation. A model that is consistent with the evidence. And a model that is useful. In philosophical terms, if you favour any particular one, you are either a rationalist, an empiricist, or a pragmatist. If you happen to be a scientist, your main interest will be theoretical, experimental or instrumental. Descartes was primarily a rationalist and as I said, I'm primarily an empiricist, so yeah, I think Descartes' approach could be improved.

you cannot prove it wrong. The only assertion that can be proven wrong is 'There is no experience'; you prove it wrong by asserting it.

OK! Challenge accepted.

"Cogito ergo sum" in propositional logic is: A ⇒ B

And all I need to do is ask: Can you think? What does it mean to think? Is A true? Is there more than one way to think? Is there right and wrong way to think? if you can't think (A is false), does it mean you don't exist? How much of your brain can we surgically remove before you lose the ability to think? Or the ability to speak and write?

None of those are the question that Descartes raises. Again, you should try to see beyond the ego-centricity of 'I think, therefore I am' to the fundamental question 'Is there thought?' which you cannot think without answering your own question.

Well. Thinking is an activity - it's a process. A verb. Descartes couldn't express system dynamics (Calculus - change over time) because Newton hadn't invented it yet. So he couldn't express thinking in anything but propositional logic.

Yes. That is one of the criticisms of Descartes' argument as he presented it.

He only had deduction at his disposal because induction and statistical mechanics was a few centuries into the future. In 2018 we have much more tools. So surely this is more accurate: f(x) ⇒ B

Francis Bacon was a contemporary of Descartes. He had a thing or two to say about induction.

Can you define f(x) (thinking) ? It is an anonymous function. A black box. How does it work? What does it mean to think? Well shit. Minds have many functions. So more broadly I compute therefore I am! f(x) ⇒ B

I anything, therefore I am.

There is no word for "compute" in Latin. Obviously.

Computare.

They didn't have computers 400 years ago.

Can't argue with that. Well, I could, but life is too short.

Welcome to the 21st century.

It's been my home for the last 18 years, but thank you.

Philosophy is dead.

Not really. Spacetime is a philosophical model, so are strings, multiple dimensions, many universes, in fact any explanation for empirical data is a philosophical model. The point that some scientists, Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking most famously make is that the philosophical model makes no difference to the calculations. 'Shut up and calculate' has been attributed to nearly every quantum theorist you are likely to have heard of.

We have science now.

Given that you like challenges, perhaps you could define science.

And we know that “minds” are properties of complex brains.

Well, we know that any "minds" that we can reliably interact with are associated with complex brains.

We can also build artificial minds - using computers. And we are certain that "Cogito ergo sum" (A ⇒ B) was a HUGE and insufficient over-simplification.

I don't know who you mean by 'we', but some of 'us' understand the point that Descartes was making.

Computer scientists call this failure mode of logic GIGO

So do philosophers.

[TimeSeeker]

Given that you like challenges, perhaps you could define science.

Any activity which enables the prediction and control of future events by producing models with bounded confidence intervals ( http://reliawiki.org/index.php/Confidence_Bounds ).

You are probably going to ask me to "define" something else (which is the game philosophers play), but I refuse to. I will answer the WHY question first.

The objective moral goal of humanity is to avoid extinction. We find ourselves in a place that is VERY complex - far beyond our understanding. And we have very little control over anything. And so ergodic theory tells us that the universe (entropy) is basically trying to kill us. You can either accept this and do some home work on complexity science (systems theory, computation, quantum physics), or close your eyes/ears and go "lalalala" and go do whatever you think philosophy/science is about.

If we cannot predict/control drastic changes in our environment - eventually, we become extinct. We study and admire natural selection/evolution and forget that it has killed 99.999% of all species that ever walked this Earth.

We are staring Death in the face and we think it's cool.

[TimeSeeker]

Not really. Spacetime is a philosophical model, so are strings, multiple dimensions, many universes, in fact any explanation for empirical data is a philosophical model. The point that some scientists, Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking most famously make is that the philosophical model makes no difference to the calculations. 'Shut up and calculate' has been attributed to nearly every quantum theorist you are likely to have heard of.

They are also mathematical models and have predictive utility. Which is far more useful than explanatory utility.
All models are wrong - some are useful. Science is a pragmatic endeavor...

Given that you like challenges, perhaps you could define science.

Any activity which enables the prediction and control of future events by producing models with bounded confidence intervals ( http://reliawiki.org/index.php/Confidence_Bounds ).

You are probably going to ask me to "define" something else (which is the game philosophers play), but I refuse to. I will answer the WHY question first.

The objective moral goal of humanity is to avoid extinction. We find ourselves in a place that is VERY complex - far beyond our understanding. And we have very little control over anything. And so ergodic theory tells us that the universe (entropy) is basically trying to kill us. You can either accept this and do some home work on complexity science (systems theory, computation, quantum physics), or close your eyes/ears and go "lalalala" and go do whatever you think philosophy/science is about.

If we cannot predict/control drastic changes in our environment - eventually, we become extinct. We study and admire natural selection/evolution and forget that it has killed 99.999% of all species that ever walked this Earth.

We are staring Death in the face and we think it's cool.
[/quote]

[uwot]

Any activity which enables the prediction and control of future events by producing models with bounded confidence intervals

Fair enough.

You are probably going to ask me to "define" something else (which is the game philosophers play), but I refuse to. I will answer the WHY question first.

That is your prerogative. Some of us are interested in how.

[TimeSeeker]

That is your prerogative. Some of us are interested in how.

I am interested in HOW. Problem-solving doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is in service of the WHY. Everything we do that we call "ethics" is about buying time for humanity.

Medicine extends human life. Which is good - because teaching/educating humans to be productive takes very long and is very expensive. The longer you live - the longer you contribute.
Technology improves human efficiency - allowing us to do more with the same resources.
Happiness/well-being/stable societies improves productivity and technological advancements - humans are better problem-solvers when the Maslow hierarchy is satisfied.
The internet allows for sharing information faster - shrinking the world. Allowing to build global communities. Which makes interaction/communication/progress move faster.
Automation/AI is about letting computers do the boring, repetitive jobs that humans hate. So we can free up human minds for solving problems that computers can't solve (yet).
Quantum Computation allows us to solve mathematical problems in less space-time as the complexity of the problem grows, which are well understood limits of classical computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche

[uwot]

Not really. Spacetime is a philosophical model, so are strings, multiple dimensions, many universes, in fact any explanation for empirical data is a philosophical model. The point that some scientists, Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking most famously make is that the philosophical model makes no difference to the calculations. 'Shut up and calculate' has been attributed to nearly every quantum theorist you are likely to have heard of.

They are also mathematical models and have predictive utility. Which is far more useful than explanatory utility.

I take your point, but with the exception of spacetime, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe has more predictive utility than all of them.

All models are wrong

They're underdetermined; we don't necessarily know that they are wrong.

...some are useful. Science is a pragmatic endeavor...

As it happens, I agree, but who are we to define science?

[uwot]

I am interested in HOW. Problem-solving doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is in service of the WHY. Everything we do that we call "ethics" is about buying time for humanity.

I wish that were true, but among the 'we' are those who think doing god's will is ethics, and some of them think that bringing on armaggedon is a good idea.

[surreptitious57]

Medicine extends human life. Which is good - because teaching / educating humans to be productive
takes very long and is very expensive. The longer you live - the longer you contribute

Medicine does improve human life but dependency especially for mental illness can be counter productive. Living longer does
not automatically lead to being more productive. And quality of life is at least as important as quantity of life if not more so

Technology improves human efficiency - allowing us to do more with the same resources

Technology does improve human efficiency but is not always beneficial to human society. The most obvious
example is the weapons industry one of the three largest in the world [ the others being porn and drugs ]

The internet allows for sharing information faster - shrinking the world. Allowing to build global communities
Which makes interaction / communication / progress move faster

Information can also be shared faster among paedophiles and terrorists and organised crime gangs
There is also the dark web where there is far less transparency and greater criminality in general

Automation / AI is about letting computers do the boring repetitive jobs that humans hate
So we can free up human minds for solving problems that computers cant solve ( yet )

What will the human mind be doing when all the problem solving will be done by
machines with computing capability many orders of magnitude greater than its own

[TimeSeeker]

I take your point, but with the exception of spacetime, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe has more predictive utility than all of them.

The next level up from prediction is control. Ultimately the enemy is complexity. We are stuck in linear time when the universe is of factorial complexity. Anything we do to turn the tide is a 'win'.

They're underdetermined; we don't necessarily know that they are wrong.

They are incomplete or imprecise. We do with what we have.

As it happens, I agree, but who are we to define science?

A bunch of monkeys stuck on a rock flying through space. Determined to stay alive.

[TimeSeeker]

Medicine does improve human life but dependency especially for mental illness can be counter productive. Living longer does
not automatically lead to being more productive. And quality of life is at least as important as quantity of life if not more so

Technology improves human efficiency - allowing us to do more with the same resources

Technology does improve human efficiency but is not always beneficial to human society. The most obvious
example is the weapons industry one of the three largest in the world [ the others being porn and drugs ]

The internet allows for sharing information faster - shrinking the world. Allowing to build global communities
Which makes interaction / communication / progress move faster

Information can also be shared faster among paedophiles and terrorists and organised crime gangs
There is also the dark web where there is far less transparency and greater criminality in general

Automation / AI is about letting computers do the boring repetitive jobs that humans hate
So we can free up human minds for solving problems that computers cant solve ( yet )

Small-minded thinking.

What will the human mind be doing when all the problem solving will be done by
machines with computing capability many orders of magnitude greater than its own

Whatever you are doing now while you aren't contributing. But without the threat of extinction hanging over our heads.

[Arising_uk]

The objective moral goal of humanity is to avoid extinction. ...

Why? Or to put it another way, lets assume you have no living relatives and someone comes to you and says 'The fate of the humanity depends upon you dying, here's a gun please shoot yourself', you'd do it?

[TimeSeeker]

The objective moral goal of humanity is to avoid extinction. ...

Why? Or to put it another way, lets assume you have no living relatives and someone comes to you and says 'The fate of the humanity depends upon you dying, here's a gun please shoot yourself', you'd do it?

Yes. I know how to poke holes in every “Why?” too.

When you get all 8 billion people on Earth to participate in a ritual suicide then you may have an argument.

Individuals are welcome to get off this train any time. We are expendable. Humanity isn’t.

[surreptitious57]

Actually humanity is just as expendable as anything else and one day will become extinct just like everything else too
We should try our very best to maximise our existence but eventually we will be no more and that has to be accepted