werticalhorizon posted: " Photo by Jeffrey Czum on Pexels.com I Most people possess logical thinking of first order as a given. Religions appeal to the first order logic: if stars, then stars' Creator. Even those, who deride deductive knowledge, cannot help but to utilize t" NTRrelations
Most people possess logical thinking of first order as a given. Religions appeal to the first order logic: if stars, then stars' Creator. Even those, who deride deductive knowledge, cannot help but to utilize their brain's arithmetic and logical unit.
Those like Wittgenstein, who in the past (but I chose him foremost since his era is not a distant one from our artificial intelligence one) possessed knowledge of higher orders of logic, intuitively knew where application of logic is reasonable – as oppose to simply valid (I exclusively use the word 'valid' in its logical sense, but 'reasonable' with me holds a higher reverence.) The numerologist, for one, has used logic unreasonably; thankfully, later science was willing to rid of that. Yet modern science armed with Bayesian logic is leading us towards Tartarus – and unceremoniously at that.
Logic cannot speak to us whether something is beneficial or harmful. Intelligence over time realize (that is, become conscious) that a is good and b is bad; with Bayesian logic, we – rather Intelligence – can 'do the maths' more quickly; hence, it finds favor with those who want things done more quickly. Yet it takes away the nurturing and internalization period that engenders the ability of inference – something, which a conscious+intelligent mind naturally requires.
Relying on an external machine will lead to degeneration of a healthy faculty, for which it was constantly utilized. For Doctor Hawking, the speaking software proved beneficial, but if someone, who can properly speak through their mouth, were to exclusively use such software, it will stifle their muscles required for speech. If enough number of our species let go of such an important faculty as reasoning, by relying on machines with Bayesian logic, we will indeed perish.
II
From now onwards, instead of designated as artificial, I will call it extra-biological intelligence; for when there is intelligence, it is intelligence – whether human, animal or that which is not carbon-based. We do not call man-made fire as artificial in contrast to that which a bolt from the sky or hot conditions on earth may have started. Logically, Wittgenstein may joke there might be non-carbon based intelligent non-terrestrial beings; but the nomenclature has 'extra' to signify the relation 'out of' or due to biological intelligence – a reminder also that humans are its makers, though we may deride ourselves for being unable to match extra-biological intelligence.
III
Enter Niels Bohr – the philosopher. As regards to the newly-wed couple of physical sciences and logic,[1] it is pertinent to add that there are enough people, who would throw philosophy out of the window – perhaps, as a return favor, or merely to make sure that simple is the best way forward, for we know how noisy things can get, how much fuss is made over philosophy availing not much. There is, however, this one fellow who would beg to differ. He goes in both philosophical and scientific circles by the name of Bohr.
His philosophy, or at least one concept I am acquainted with, is rather so simple that it is possible only for the radical skeptic, perhaps, to argue against it. But first, let me logically rephrase the concept as seeing 'I'm-possible' in 'impossible'; on negative side, the chain smoker only sees 'smoking' in 'no smoking'. If logicians would excuse, the contradixion
∼ ℘ = ℘
is valid, though it is reasonable that we 'historicize', which we cannot in logic: when action a was taken, a thing x acted upon was good, and at a later time when action b was taken x was bad. (Of course, x may be utilized always for good only or for bad only, but inherently, x has the potential to be used for both.)
In more actual terms, then, Bohr believed that the same thing can be used both for a good and bad purpose. Bayesian logic cannot stand this 'non-sense', of course: How can somebody kill with a pen for Pope's sake, it's ridiculous; even more so, if it took ages to write a book with the said pen, while the killing took only seconds. However, if we look the matter through Bohr's philosophical spectacles (not his scientific microscope, at which he was equally adept), we realize: extra-biological intelligence is already a weapon like everything else in our mundane existence – fire, water pool, seeds of apple, bitter almond, human bare hand. These and other weapons, however, are less dangerous than extra-biological intelligence. Even the ready-made counter-example of nuclear weapons remains in few hands and cannot have funny ideas of their own.
IV
History gives us eyes – perhaps, hindsight but better than blindness. Yet in our current era, we are over-utilizing logic, which as we have seen in section III, above, can lead us to think that
∼ ℘ = ℘
holds true. The bad logic, however, does not inumbrate Bohr's philosophy. Rather the error lies in locating in logic his philosophy. If logic develops a needless impasse for philosophy, which unlike Classic Greeks we tend to relegate to the abstract, how much more problematic is to describe physiological world (colloquially, nature) through logical devices such as Okkham's razor. (Might it be a nature's joke that in popular parlance, Okkham's name has been simplified to Occam?)
As such, life seems an on/off switch, where the same switch can be at on or off position; so, what's the point, we begin to question, of life – the good and the bad appear just a convenient distinxion, with no objective reality. History, however, would tell us that for example, at 7 o'clock evening, the switch was at the on position, and it remained so until 11 o'clock that evening, when it was turned to off position. Thus, the same life would be good at one occasion, and bad at another occasion. (Even though the phrase, 'the monarch is dead, long live the monarch' is said in one breath, the passing away still occurs prior to the beginning of a new reign.)
V
Henry Hallam (1777-1859): "Cogito; Ergo sum, this famous enthymem[2] of the Cartesian philosophy."[3]
If by enthymem is meant that Descartes was using syllogism with an unstated premiss, I would consider it an example of needless intrusion of logic into philosophy. Descartes had explicitly denied use of syllogism in his replies to the objexions raised in connexion to his Meditations:
"When someone says "I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist," he does not deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind."
'Second Replies', The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume 2: Page 100. Cottingham and Stoothoff and Murdoch (editors) 1984. Cambridge University Press.[4]
If his own defence seems inadequate to anybody than I would refer such a person to Tom Griffith: " 'cogito ergo sum' is not a syllogism ('Whatever thinks, exists.' 'I think.' 'There-fore I exist.'), but a simple intuition."
[1] Looking at things as they stand, 'newly-wed' might appear absurd but for long epochs, logic had a place of its own, while 'science' has only recently been exclusively used to mean physical sciences. Not only Aristotle with whom logic as a 'field' of knowledge really began, had called political science the master science, but the Classic Greeks, in general, also had kicked upstairs to Olympus Mons concerns with respect to cosmos, wilderness and night – conquering which three together with death and misery is the chief obsession in modern science – happily discoursing of science (which means knowledge) related to human affairs – hence, political science.
[2] "enthymemen. Also [obsolete form] -mem, & in L[atin] form enthymema [ ]
"1 Logic. A syllogism in which one premiss is not explicitly stated. [In usage since mid 16th century].
"2 Rhet[orical]. An argument based on merely probable grounds. [Had been used from early 17th to mid 19th centuries]." (Source: see next footnote.)
[3] Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary. Copyright 1998 The Learning Company, Incorporated.
No comments:
Post a Comment