Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I am not so certain about that.
>> I'm sorry.
> 
> Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with 
> not being certain about some things.

I suspect we're misunderstanding each other here. :-)  It sounded like you 
were saying you're not sure whether it's possible to have unlearned 
instinctive knowledge of how the universe was created.

>> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
>> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
>> justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
>> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.
> 
> Exactly my point.  People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that 
> phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.

That's kind of the definition of "faith", you see. You don't have to be 
religious to be "faithful" that something is the case.

> It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality, 
> or it may coexist peacefully with reality.  There is a lot of uncertainty 
> in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that 
> there's something bigger out there.

Yes. I'm just disputing the word "knowledge."  I think using "knowledge" to 
mean the same as "faith" is diluting the word and making it useless for 
discourse. We already have a word for "knowledge for which I have no 
justification and which I wouldn't disbelieve regardless of presented 
evidence", and that's "faith".

> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
> cues.  I just knew it.  

You learned it before you built your model of the universe that includes 
yourself, and hence you were never self-aware before you learned that.

It happens when you're thrashing around, reaching for things, etc. That's 
why people hang stuff over the kid's bed, and give them toys to play with. 
That's what the "peekaboo" game is all about. For the first half a year, 
children don't even realize that things exist they aren't looking at, let 
alone that smaller things are farther away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_cognitive_development

I also understand informally from friends with children that it's about 18 
to 24 months before actual self-awareness develops, based on (for example) 
kids putting dolls in the doll-bath-tub rather than just banging the dolls 
on things. I.e., that's the age at which kids suddenly start thinking of 
other things (and people and animals) as having thoughts and personalities, 
rather than as parts of the environment they can't easily predict.

> But the actual example isn't really the point, 

I know that. I was just changing the subject. What? In off-topic? Shame on 
me! :-)

> the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used 
> hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).

Yes. I think it's possible to know the functioning of your own body, to a 
large extent. Even that isn't a given, tho.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/12s/the_strangest_thing_an_ai_could_tell_you/



-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message