[FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff

[Marcus Daniels]

He states his Humpty Dumpty preference, and then says wait for the science to, in effect, falsify it.  (Noting how it is well on the way to doing just that.)   Then there's a lot of in between where he talks in circles.  Don't really see the point.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:47 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff

Yep. But to be fair, that's part of their job, as long as their belief is temporary ... for the purposes of playing an idea out to its reasonable conclusions. What's inevitable is that any philosopher machine, like any machine, will tend to get stuck in some rut as it ages and degrades ... until it stops ticking entirely. It's tragic, really. We non-philosophers are quite lucky in that, as we degrade, the machine we've built over decades wiggles only a little bit around the ephemeris. Barring a domain-shattering discovery (or a gaslighting nightmare like Fox News), non-philosophers will die believing roughly what they came to believe over their lifetime. But for a machine whose purpose it is to swap beliefs like hats and scarves, they could land anywhere.

On 10/5/20 10:37 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I forget there are philosophers who are prepared to believe, well, anything.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/