Re: My opinion of Chapter 7 of Beginning of Infinity
- On 8/30/2011 6:36 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, Richard Fine<richard.fine@...> wrote:I'm not so sure. By 'search' we're talking about a class of approaches
>> Well, our disagreement is about the difference between 'creating
>> knowledge' and 'search,' right?"
> I very much doubt investigating that "difference" will bring any
> enlightenment, not philosophically and certainly not scientifically.
that progressively enumerate points in a space in some way. But I think
that the space of all ideas isn't enumerable - it's
real-valued/uncountable - so a 'search' approach could, at best, be
operating on an limited-precision abstraction of it. Creating knowledge,
by contrast, doesn't need to have limited precision.
>> I don't know whether either of them [Popper and Deutsch] have asserted thatEvolution consists of conjecture (variation) and refutation (selection),
>> there is knowledge in DNA
> I don't know about Popper but in his new book Professor Deutsch did indicate
> that genes have knowledge, and although I don't want to argue over the use
> of a word, he also indicates that knowledge only comes from the scientific
> method; but if induction does not exist where did the genes knowledge come
> from? Evolution certainly didn't engage in critical thinking.
which Popper claimed is the only means by which knowledge can be
created. I'm not sure whether it's "thinking" but it definitely meets
the criteria for knowledge-creation.
>> "Google detects spelling mistakes, because that's what it's beenThat seems a non-sequitur to me. The issue isn't about making mistakes,
>> implemented to do, but it can't tell you that you're searching for
>> completely the wrong thing."
> But you and I have both searched for the wrong thing sometime in our lives,
> does that mean we are not intelligent?
it's about correcting mistakes.
> And Google has more excuse forWell, with zero background knowledge, neither Google the machine or Mr
> getting it wrong than we do; If we ask Mr. Google to tell us all about
> "Spears" how is he supposed to know we're interested in ancient weapons and
> not in a modern pop star unless we tell him?
Google the person would be able to filter results correctly for us. Why
do you ask?
- On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 Alan Forrester wrote:
> "David criticizes Lamarckism, pointing out that it is totally incapable ofI want to stay clear of the "K" word, around here it contains way too much
> explaining the creation of any kind of knowledge. Do you have a rebuttal of
> that criticism?"
metaphysical baggage for my taste. I will say that Lamarckism is just as
logical as Darwinism, it's just not the way biology works on planet Earth,
perhaps elsewhere things are different. And even on Earth Lamarckism is the
way ideas evolve, when a mind is infected with a new meme it modifies it,
and when that mind infects a new mind for meme reproduction the acquired
characteristics are also reproduced. That's why its astronomically faster
than biological Evolution.
John K Clark
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]