On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:40:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

We do have that habit a lot, don't we? ;-)

>> 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.

Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's 
based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from within 
rather than from external sources.

>> 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".

There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts 
what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge".  There are 
some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the 
associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things 
that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.

In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this 
discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.

>> 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.

Perhaps.  Will have to think on this more.

>> 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! :-)

LOL

>> 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/

Will have to read that when I have more time.  It *sounds* interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message