[ExI] Sensory Reality

Ben Zaiboc bbenzai at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 25 09:58:43 UTC 2009


JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> revealed:

> What importance does it have that you cannot magically
> "experience"  
> "things-in-themselves"? Outside of sort-of solving that
> symbol  
> grounding problem, it doesn't effect anything at all. We
> create a  
> model of the world based on our sense-perceptions of
> reality. That  
> model is based, necessarily on those sense-perceptions. We
> revise our  
> model continually based on all of our sense-perceptions,
> and over time  
> it gets better and better, closer and closer to reality as
> it is "in- 
> itself." We use this model to plan and act in the world in
> order to  
> live. We are not divorced from reality because we are not
> gods. We  
> simply have to work in order to understand it. We may be
> wrong, but if  
> so, we correct our model. I do not see any meaningful
> consequences in  
> acknowledging the fact that we aren't omniscient gods.
> Reason is still  
> valid, and science is the way to understanding the natural
> world. It  
> isn't limiting to acknowledge we are not infallible. In
> fact, that  
> very admission is what is necessary for us to begin
> understanding the  
> world.
> 
> Oh, and Ben, your experiment, where you experience the
> world directly  
> as sense inputs, is something that is easy to at least see:
> look at  
> babies. Babies have no mental representations of the world,
> and are  
> just beginning to try to form one. And I think everyone
> knows how much  
> help babies need to survive.

The only importance I ascribe to this idea is that it refutes the 'symbol-grounding problem' (i.e. there is no problem), and shows that there is no reason that (non-biological) machines can experience just as much 'meaning' as biological ones.

As for 'truth' (or 'reality'), I tried to avoid mentioning the "Ding-an-Sich" ding, precisely because it leads to people talking about metaphysics, which in my world is a dirty word.

I don't think we necessarily get closer and closer to the truth, or reality, I think we refine our models to work better. There's a difference.

Whether a model that works better is equivalent to getting closer to 'reality' is pretty much irrelevant. What's important is what works. (I should say "what works within a given context", to avoid the Wrath of Jef ;>)

'Truth' is a side-effect, and less important.  Everyone is (or should be) aware that there are 'useful lies'.  As long as you don't *believe* them, that's ok.  You can use them, test them, keep them if they give you good results, and discard them if they don't.  Newtonian gravity is a good example. It's a 'useful lie' that works pretty well, until you need to explain the orbit of Mercury.  The Standard Model of particle physics is almost certainly another one.  Many people's idea that the guy they call 'dad' is actually their father is another. So is the concept of solid objects. Etc.

Ben Zaiboc




      



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list