[Serious Phil] Wittgenstein Slides

[Joseph Polanik]

seanwilsonorg wrote:

 >Eray Ozkural wrote:

 >>to somebody who does know enough neuroscience and computational
 >>learning theory, it should be obvious that machine learning and human
 >>learning are pretty much the same kind of mechanism. there isn't any
 >>fundamental difference. in fact, there are many machine learning
 >>algorithms that are based on the operation of the brain, and in case
 >>you are not aware, there are even whole brain simulation projects. so
 >>saying they are not grammatically equivalent is just sophistry and
 >>rhetoric, something a person who doesn't understand the science might
 >>say, and i think in that slide a certain amount of ignorance about
 >>computers is present, sorry to tell you about that, but being a
 >>linguistic philosopher doesn't mean you understand every conceptual
 >>distinction. i don't think you understand the distinction between
 >>computers and humans, actually, there are many differences between a
 >>computer and a human (surprise?), but "the ability to learn" isn't one
 >>of them.

 >Wittgenstein talks about seeing aspects and the connections that go on
 >when humans go through a "wow moment" (getting it). He talks about
 >heirarchies in states of comprehension, such as when a person can
 >exercise connoisseur judgment. Really, this whole area is concerned
 >with philosophy of insight (what insight is).

 >I don't need to accept your way of talking about it, so long as others
 >who know the same things can validly speak of it differently.

 >What you and Stuart fail to understand in all of this, is that you are
 >not really offering any information in this debate. All that you are
 >Stuart are doing is offering an ASPECT SIGHT. That's it. You are
 >offering what is, in effect, a connoisseur judgment, but you don't even
 >know it.

I suspect that both Eray and Stuart each 'know' (ie believe) that they
have a connoisseur's judgment as to the perspective to take regarding a
certain range of questions.

 >What you are saying is that if we should adopt a picture of account
 >about our minds at is computational or machine-oriented (or what not).
 >All that I am trying to tell you back is that other pictures of account
 >still exist, as do other ways of speaking about the same information.

not all perspectives reflect a connoisseur's judgment; some are just
crank opinions. how effective rational argument may be at weeding out
the latter is open to debate; but, it remains desirable to make the
attempt.

 >Wittgensteinians don't want anything more than for you to see the
 >limitations of your own prejudice. If you could only see that you
 >merely champion an aspect-sight, the whole thing could be quieted.

what would be quieted?

Joe


-- 

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
       http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@