Ben, Mapping RRA to Hegel's space isn't trivial, but here goes...
On 11/19/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have nothing against Hegel; I think he was a great philosopher. His > "Logic" is really fantastic reading. And, having grown up surrounded by > Marxist wannabe-revolutionaries (most of whom backed away from strict > Marxism in the mid-70s when the truth about the Soviet Union came out in > America), I am also aware there is a lot of deep truth in Marx's thought, in > spite of the evil that others wrought with it after his death... It's refreshing to be able to discuss the structure of problems rather than simply planning the future of the world as: 1. We will build AGIs. 2. The AGIs will create a Singularity. 3. Then, something wonderful (or horrible) will happen. > I just think that Hegel's dialectical philosophy is clearer than your > "reverse reductio ad absurdum", That is because he saw a process that he didn't fully understand, leaving the participants to argue their many positions for decades/centuries until many consensus resolution were identified. Things always look simpler when you ignore the necessary details. BTW, there was once a government run by consensus - where all differences were argued until everyone agreed. That was early Islam, first under Mohamed and later under 4 subsequent "caliphs" who worked with Mohamed until his death. Of course, this is ONLY possible given some sort of understanding of RRA, yet historical accounts do NOT include anything like RRA (that I have found). Then, things came unraveled. In a logical world (if this is even possible given illogical people), consensus should be possible. Allowing for a few idiots, it should take >90% majority to pass any law or do anything that is potentially destructive (as though there were anything that a government could do that is NOT potentially destructive). In short, the whole rule by majority thing is severely flawed, though it may be OK to choose representatives. > and so I'm curious to know what you think your formulation *adds* to the > classic Hegelian one... A clear path to resolving differences rather than leaving it to unstructured argument, compromise, etc., as Hegel did. It directly challenges BOTH sides of an intractable dispute to seek and find the shared bad assumptions and NOT compromise, or to shut up because they are simply not smart enough to participate. > From what I understand, your RRA heuristic says that, sometimes, when both > X and ~X are appealing to rational people, there is some common assumption > underlying the two, which when properly questioned and modified can yield a > new Y that transcends and in some measure synthesizes aspects of X and ~X Usually, neither X nor ~X are even deducible from Y. For example, in the abortion debate, the pro-life side is happy because abortions are more effectively stopped than if a law had been passed, and the pro-choice is happy because there are no laws in place. Neither side can even get to the contentious point that they were at before. > I suppose Hegel would have called Y the dialectical synthesis of X and ~X, > right? Not being a Hegel scholar, that's the way that I see it. Hegel just failed to take the next step of mapping out exactly how to reach a dialectical synthesis, which is what RRA does. > BTW, we are certainly not seeing the fall of capitalism now. Marx's > dialectics-based predictions made a lot of errors; for instance, both he and > Hegel failed to see the emergence of the middle class as a sort of > dialectical synthesis of the ruling class and the proletariat ;-) ... and America failed to see the coming disappearance of the middle class, that throws society back into Marx's realm. > ... but, I digress!! I don't think so, as we are now thinking about things at the level that a future AGI would have to be able to think at to provide societal guidance. If we can't function at this level ourselves, how are we ever going to create AGIs that do this? > So, how would you apply your species of dialectics to solve the problem of > consciousness? This is a case where, clearly, rational intelligent and > educated people hold wildly contradictory opinions, ... which is a pretty clear demonstration that consciousness doesn't work very well. This was EXACTLY my point when discussing Dr. Eliza (that also has its obvious limitations), that other methods can potentially avoid the logical traps of the conscious process. > e.g. > X1 = consciousness does not exist > > X2 = consciousness is a special extra-physical entity that correlates with > certain physical systems at certain times > > X3 = consciousness is a kind of physical entity > > X4 = consciousness is a property immanent in everything, that gets > focused/structured differently via interaction with different physical > systems > > All these positions contradict each other. How do you suggest to > dialectically synthesize them? ;-) No, properly restating the above question: "How do we and others identify our invalid underlying assumptions to reach a dialectical synthesis?" This is EXACTLY what "Ben's list" is all about. We now finally appear to be on the same page. Here is a new one for Ben's list: *There has been a presumption in some quarters that consciousness is single-valued, when this is clearly not the case. Different people and animals clearly have very different things happening behind their eyeballs. Given different things to compare, obviously, contradictory conclusions about consciousness are easy to reach. For example, people who grow up with impairments, e.g. from low daytime body temperature (central hypothermia) can become bright/brilliant because they learn to use what they still have very efficiently (e.g. Loosemore). Then, when the impairment is removed, they often become off-scale super-human smart. This clearly shows that something quite different is happening behind their eyeballs, and that the impairment is not necessary to sustain that difference, though it may be needed to create that difference.* X1 appears to be on its face wrong, as it appears to state that the word "consciousness" has no physical referent, which is plainly false because we can all point something/someone having it, whatever it might be, real or not. X2 is a clear belief in magic, which once understood, is no longer magic. Hence, X2 appears to be an oxymoron. X3 and X4 do not appear to be mutually contradictory, though they may both be wrong. Perhaps restatement is necessary to differentiate them. We discussed a prospective "theory of everything" in July/August that I think points to an X5 that is a sort of refined X4. I suspect that when X5 is finally stated in undeniable terms, that this and many other disputes here and elsewhere fill quickly evaporate in a sort of dialectical synthesis of AGI positions. The problem here is that everyone's positions here are based on a presumption that an AGI can be constructed * without* that "theory of everything" being in hand. I think that we have an RRA proof here that this is NOT possible. Nonetheless, it IS interesting to be a "fly on the wall" and watch people try. Steve Richfield ======================== On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ben: >> >> On 11/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> This sounds an awful lot like the Hegelian dialectical method... >> >> >> Your point being? >> >> We are all stuck in Hegal's Hell whether we like it or not. Reverse >> Reductio ad Absurdum is just a tool to help guide us through it. >> >> There seems to be a human tendency to say that something "sounds an awful >> lot like (something bad)" to dismiss it, but the crucial thing is often the >> details rather than the broad strokes. For example, the Communist Manifesto >> detailed the coming fall of Capitalism, which we may now be seeing in the >> current financial crisis. Sure, the "solution" proved to be worse than the >> problem, but that doesn't mean that the identification of the problems was >> in error. >> >> From what I can see, ~100% of the (mis?)perceived threat from AGI comes >> from a lack of understanding of RRAA (Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum), both by >> those working in AGI and those by the rest of the world. This clearly has >> the potential of affecting your own future success, so it is probably worth >> the extra 10 minutes or so to dig down to the very bottom of it, understand >> it, discuss it, and then take your reasoned position regarding it. After >> all, your coming super-intelligent AGI will probably have to master RRAA to >> be able to resolve intractable disputes, so you will have to be on top of >> RRAA if you are to have any chance of debugging your AGI. >> >> Steve Richfield >> ====================== >> >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Steve Richfield < >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Martin, >>>> >>>> On 11/18/08, martin biehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a >>>>> precise counterexample, but I think you get my point. >>>> >>>> >>>> HERE is the crux of my argument, as other forms of logic fall short of >>>> being adequate to run a world with. Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum is the >>>> first logical tool with the promise to resolve most intractable disputes, >>>> ranging from the abortion debate to the middle east problem. >>>> >>>> Some people get it easily, and some require long discussions, so I'll >>>> post the "Cliff Notes" version here, and if you want it in smaller doses, >>>> just send me an off-line email and we can talk on the phone. >>>> >>>> Reductio ad absurdum has worked unerringly for centuries to test bad >>>> assumptions. This constitutes a proof by lack of counterexample that the >>>> ONLY way to reach an absurd result is by a bad assumption, as otherwise, >>>> reductio ad absurdum would sometimes fail. >>>> >>>> Hence, when two intelligent people reach conflicting conclusions, but >>>> neither can see any errors in the other's logic, it would seem that they >>>> absolutely MUST have at least one bad assumption. Starting from the >>>> absurdity and searching for the assumption is where the reverse in reverse >>>> reductio ad absurdum comes in. >>>> >>>> If their false assumptions were different, than one or both parties >>>> would quickly discover them in discussion. However, when the argument stays >>>> on the surface, the ONLY place remaining to hide an invalid assumption is >>>> that they absolutely MUSH share the SAME invalid assumptions. >>>> >>>> Of course if our superintelligent AGI approaches them and points out >>>> their shared invalid assumption, then they would probably BOTH attack the >>>> AGI, as their invalid assumption may be their only point of connection. It >>>> appears that breaking this deadlock absolutely must involve first teaching >>>> both parties what reverse reductio ad absurdum is all about, as I am doing >>>> here. >>>> >>>> For example, take the abortion debate. It is obviously crazy to be >>>> making and killing babies, and it is a proven social disaster to make this >>>> illegal - an obvious reverse reductio ad absurdum situation. >>>> >>>> OK, so lets look at societies where abortion is no issue at all, e.g. >>>> Muslim societies, where it is freely available, but no one gets them. >>>> There, >>>> children are treated as assets, where in all respects we treat them as >>>> liabilities. Mothers are stuck with unwanted children. Fathers must pay >>>> child support, They can't be bought or sold. There is no expectation that >>>> they will look after their parents in their old age, etc. >>>> >>>> In short, BOTH parties believe that children should be treated as >>>> liabilities, but when you point this out, they dispute the claim. Why >>>> should >>>> mothers be stuck with unwanted children? Why not allow sales to parties who >>>> really want them? There are no answers to these and other similar questions >>>> because the underlying assumption is clearly wrong. >>>> >>>> The middle east situation is more complex but constructed on similar >>>> invalid assumptions. >>>> >>>> Are we on the same track now? >>>> >>>> Steve Richfield >>>> ================================ >>>> >>>>> 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>>>> To all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as >>>>>> follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different >>>>>> orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and >>>>>> in >>>>>> many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers >>>>>> would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not >>>>>> confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an >>>>>> applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then >>>>>> provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and >>>>>> number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of >>>>>> rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's >>>>>> license, >>>>>> and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name >>>>>> and number. >>>>>> >>>>>> The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially >>>>>> probing into: >>>>>> 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of >>>>>> resolving otherwise intractable disputes. >>>>>> 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports >>>>>> various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This >>>>>> would >>>>>> exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone >>>>>> useless >>>>>> violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence >>>>>> toward >>>>>> others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while >>>>>> being >>>>>> unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. >>>>>> Jesus >>>>>> attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad >>>>>> killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into >>>>>> slavery, etc., etc. >>>>>> 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance >>>>>> to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the >>>>>> directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this >>>>>> test. This statement would be included on the license. >>>>>> >>>>>> This should force many people off of the fence, as they would have to >>>>>> choose between sanity and Heaven (or Hell). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, Ben, the CIA, diplomats, etc., could verify that they are >>>>>> dealing with people who don't have any of the common forms of societal >>>>>> insanity. Perhaps the site should be multi-lingual? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any and all thoughts are GREATLY appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Richfield >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>>>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >>> Director of Research, SIAI >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, >>> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance >>> accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give >>> orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch >>> manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die >>> gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher > a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, > build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, > cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, > program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. > Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
