[extropy-chat] Depressing thought of the day

[Jef Allbright]

Brett -

I think Eliezer's post was intended more as poetry, rather than the more
comprehensive style for which he is well known.   It should be appreciated
for the idea or feeling that it conveys.  Fewer words, crafted to replicate
the intended message in the mind of the audience, can be a truer form of
communication than a scientific dissertation.

Or not.

- Jef




Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky writes:
>
>> Ones and zeroes.  We can see them completely and clearly;
>> the entire realm is absolutely under our control; it is a world
>> that we built and that runs entirely on our rules.  Destroying
>> the intruder is as easy as making the  decision.
>>
>> And yet we still can't get rid of spam.
>>
>> Active shields against grey goo?  Yeah, right.
>
> I don't mean to be a smart arse Eliezer, I mean I *really* don't
> mean to be, but I seem to be having a little trouble winding in
> the hyper-philosopher at present and it is in that context that
> I wonder if your starting assertion is correct. I think maybe your
> angst(?) about grey goo, rolled back to concern about spam may
> further roll back to an essential misunderstanding in your first
> proposition.
>
> We can see 1s and 0's completely and clearly (but not in context)
> taken one digit at a time but we *never* encounter there meaning
> without some other contextual information accompanying them to
> tell us what the 1's and 0's mean. A one can be a 'label' like the
> number on ones address eg. 1 First Street, or the digit or numeral
> or symbol 1 (or 0) can mean other things.
>
> Further the 1's and 0's when put together in streams don't simply
> convey extra potential arithmetic meaning,  the new combinations
> to the interpreter of the message (as opposed to the writer) who
> may not be sure of the intended context (faces geometric)
> increases in potential meaning.
>
> Context is vital to readers of symbols even in binary bitstreams.
> If the reader can't discern some sort of additional meta context
> from the writer that is not contained in just the bitstreams then
> the reader is doomed to flounder around in infinite possible
> interpretations. Or so it seems to me. In practice of course
> in human interactions we don't encounter bitstreams without
> context we always have some context and no particular human
> ever lived in a world of bitstreams before they lived in a social
> world. The bitstreams are therefore fundamental in a way, but
> secondary in another way. What was fundamental to the first
> counters or imbue-ers of meaning to bitstreams was some extra
> context between conveyers of a message.  Context cannot
> be contained in a disembodied message.
>
> Perhaps that is as clear as mud. But I'm not stuck with grey goo
> or spam problems I'm stuck with people who really don't seem
> to know what they are talking about. (No specific slur or insult
> intended at all - I'm speaking matter of factly as that's just how
> things are seeming to me at present.)
>
> Regards,
> Brett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat