[LBird]

More thoughts, to help explain.

LBird, post #61, wrote:

Humans actively create knowledge by their interaction with the external world.'Knowledge' of a cat is not a 'cat'. Knowledge reflects the questions we ask of reality, rather than reality itself.

To deepen this example, we can ask ‘is that ‘cat’ a ‘cat’?’.In other words, we can ask is that ‘cat’ (a really existing ‘object’ that we perceive) a ‘cat’ (a piece of ‘knowledge’ that we socially produce)?So, something is really present, but what?What if the society that asks this question is 17th century England? The ‘object’ might be ‘known’ to be a ‘witch’, rather than a mere ‘cat’.This ‘knowledge’ is ‘true’. Since ‘knowledge’ is a social creation, the knowledge, to all intents and purposes is, ‘true’. It is a ‘witch’, not a ‘cat’.The ‘scientific method’ has produced a ‘truth’. Science proceeds from social assumptions, asks questions of ‘reality’ and constructs answers based on the interaction of those assumptions with nature. The subject interrogates the object and produces knowledge.A later interrogation of the object by a society working from different assumptions will indeed conclude that the ‘cat’ is indeed a ‘cat’. The 'object' retains its existence, for later re-examination.New ‘knowledge’ has displaced earlier ‘knowledge’, so what was ‘true’ is now thought to be ‘untrue’. ‘Truth’ is social and has a history.But, of course, this is not a final truth. Given a change in the theory of categorising animals (say, due to genetics unmasking appearances), the future might go on to conclude that a ‘cat’ is actually a member of the ‘dog’ family!

[LBird]

I can do no better than re-quote Anton Pannekoek, once again.

Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, p. 29, wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

Theories of 'butterfly spots' are a human creation, not a discovery of 'butterfly spots'.

[LBird]

Thank god I don't have to write the algorithm to capture the logic of that question!I don't think I can state my position any clearer.All scientific activity must be under democratic control, however it is defined. All aspects. Science is a social activity and its truths are social truths.All. All. All. Everything. Everything. Everything.Now, if you don't agree, you hold a different ideological opinion to me.From my perspective, you are clinging on to the bourgeois notion that some parts of science are 'neutral' and thus not amenable to democratic control.

ALB wrote:

Why should society have to decide whether a theory of how the lesser spotted butterfly got its spots is "true" or not?

Because the ‘theory’ will be a socially-constructed ‘truth’!

ALB wrote:

Why should "society" have the power to reject a finding a majority didn't find acceptable ("politically correct"?)?

Because ‘society’ should ‘have the power to reject a finding a majority didn't find acceptable’. Mengele’s findings should be subject to the acceptability of the majority.

ALB wrote:

Or to decide that "2 + 2 = 5"?

Because ‘mathematics’ is a social construct. I can show that ‘2+2=11’, in base 3. Further, if we change the meanings of the symbols ‘2’ and ‘5’, then ‘2+2=5’ would be ‘true’.

ALB wrote:

In fact, why should it want to have this power?

Because if ‘society’ doesn’t ‘have this power’, someone else will have! It’s the political implications of your ‘simple, obvious questions’ that appear to escape you.If I can be frank, ALB, I think that you’re approaching this essentially philosophical question about social power and science from the perspective of ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’, who has to deal with ‘the real world’ using ‘common sense’.I feel similar to the communist who’s explained a theory of capitalism, value and free access communism to someone in the pub at great length, who then asks ‘But will I still be able to get a packet of fags for less than a fiver under communism?’Is the SPGB a ‘Clapham omnibus’? I think we need input to this issue, other than ours… and that of Marx, Pannekoek, Dietzgen…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…but deciding whether or not the findings of this activity are acceptable (are "valid" or "true") is something different.

That's an ideological position.What's more, it's one I don't share with you.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The ambiguity has arisen because the way you sometimes express your point of view seems to be suggesting that the findings of scientific research should be subject to validation as to whether or not they are to be regarded as "true" by some sort of democratic consultation. Which is a different proposition.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that I'm being 'ambiguous', ALB.I am suggesting, and have been right through the thread, that 'the findings of scientific research' should have their 'truth' validated by a democratic process!The ball's in the court of those who disagree, to say how the human activity of science is to be controlled, and by whom.'Truth' is a social construct.

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, III, wrote:

The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

I'm suggesting that to argue otherwise is to fall into the trap which Marx points out, and will 'divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society'.Science under communism must be a mass activity, and under our control. To leave 'science' in the hands of 'experts' is to fall for the bourgeois myth of 'neutral science'.'Science' at present is a key part of bourgeois social authority. I've even had comrades begin their comments, on other sites, 'Science tells us…'.That was also attempted at the beginning of this thread, regarding anthropological arguments against Sotionov's position, which were claimed to be 'scientific', rather than as the result of a scientific ideology which I share, but I don't pretend it's 'objective' or 'The Truth', but part of my political beliefs.

[LBird]

Jonathan Marks, Why I am not a Scientist, 2009, p. 61, wrote:

Scientists themselves are moral actors, even if they separate their subject matter from the subject matter of moralists, theologians, and politicians. Two major episodes from the mid-twentieth century established that point: the complicity of Nazi scientists in the Holocaust, and that of American scientists in the deaths of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reflecting simply on the latter, the head of the Manhattan Project, J. Robert Oppenheimer, famously remarked, “Physicists have known sin.”

[LBird]

For information/discussion/rejection"Knowledge élites and class war"Article by Sheila Jasanoff, Nature 401 7th October, 1999http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/44021

S. Jasanoff wrote:

The strength of the common-law system historically has been to promote the integra- tion of expert knowledge with lay perceptions of facts and values. This model of decision- making should be especially prized at a time when  our  sciences  have  made  us  sharply aware of the interconnectedness of things…it may be tempting, in the short run, for know- ledge élites to shake their heads over public ignorance and to avoid lay involvement in decisions affecting science and technology. But in the long run our hope lies in enhanc- ing,  not  curtailing,  the  opportunities  for conversation between science and society.

[my bold]

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…

Since twc's post is little more than a personal attack on me, I don't consider it appropriate to respond. I'll leave any response to it to other comrades who have become interested in the issues raised on this thread.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, I won't try to define intelligence, largely because in computer terms, I'd suggest it isn't actually very interesting, and ends up being misleading.

Well, if the use of the term 'intelligence' is not 'interesting' and indeed is 'misleading', why don't these researchers use a different term, such as… errrmm… 'dumbness'?It wouldn't be because that would let the 'ideological cat' out of the bag, would it?

YMS wrote:

So, what I'm interested in is robots/computers…

Yes, I recognise that, comrade! They're very interesting – I worked in the computing profession for 20 years, so I'm with you on that.But why let your enthusiasm for 'computers' become ideologically-soiled by insisting on retaining the term 'intelligence' in your laudable efforts?

YMS wrote:

These sorts of things, rather than an artificial personality (which is what many people, driven by the movies, mistake for AI).

Yeah, spot on! So why add to the confusion by continuing to use the ideologically-loaded initials 'AI'?Why not use 'Artificial Dumbness'?Be a leader in your field, and start referring to 'AD', when discussing 'computers'!We desperately need comrades to engage with bourgeois science and its scientists, and question and defeat their misleading arguments. Our class must be conscious of the class basis of 'science', and challenge its social authority.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But I do have some sympathy with the idea that only a physical entity structured like a human brain can actually produce human consciousness/intelligence.

Well, let's take the example of, not 'structured like', but an actually 'human brain'.If a new-born baby was locked in a box on tubular life-support for the first 18 years of its life, with no human contact, would this mysterious entity named 'intelligence' be produced by or emerge from this brain?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…intelligence-like activities, such as lawyering, or designing bridges…

YMS wrote:

…the idea that only a physical entity structured like a human brain can actually produce human consciousness/intelligence.

I'm afraid I don't share your opinion that 'lawyering or designing' constitute 'intelligence' or its very distant cousin 'intelligence-like'.Further, you haven't defined 'intelligence', or said why you consider 'a human brain'  produces this undefined entity.These are philosophical and thus ideological issues, not computing problems.If you personally approach these issues employing bourgeois constructs that you've been taught, I think that you'll go astray, comrade.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

BTW, I am taken with Searles Chinese box argument, but a fully virtualised brain could by-pass the question of intentionality.

I've had a brief look at this issue, and I'm struck by two of its ideological starting points:a) brain = mind;b) the 'individualist' context of the interactions.Discussions about thinking, intelligence, consciousness and intentionality are related to 'mind'. 'Mind' is a social category, not a biological one, so searching for those characteristics in a 'brain' would be like searching for 'speed' in a statue of the spirit of ecstacy on the bonnet of a stationary rolls-royce.Only a society that values 'individuals' and 'geniuses' would see 'a brain' as a starting point for these researches. For this type of society, 'intelligence' is some phenomenon in individuals, rather than a social product.If, however, 'intelligence' is regarded as seated in society, the only way to create artificial intelligence would be to create a suitable society, rather than a 'brain'.In this sense, we could regard humanity's creation of a communist society as the supreme act of producing an artificial intelligence ('artificial' in the sense of something which doesn't exist 'naturally', but which must be consciously crafted by humans).If this line is taken, an AI scientist must be a communist to conduct serious research, regarding its materials, theories, purposes, aims, etc.If an AI scientist uses bourgeois science, with its ideological assumptions, in my opinion they might as well be making mud pies and be trying to converse with them.This is all off my head – what do other comrades think?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, it's a philosophical problem that might be solved by computing methods.

The 'techies' answer!

YMS wrote:

Though the computer tech response is to say that the question of whether a computer can think is as uninteresting as asking whether a submarine can swim.

Isn't it just!

YMS wrote:

After all, Bertrand Russell after 350+ pages didn't manage to prove 1+1=2 (he got to a partial proof, but never managed to define addition), but that doesn't stop us using maths in any case.

Ahh, 'using'! The instrumental key to the universe!

YMS wrote:

A computer beat Gary Kasparov at chess (with, yes, the help of human programmers),…

With the 'help' of what? A 'computer' needing help? Strange concept, with them being so 'intelligent'…

YMS wrote:

…so we know that 'intelligence-like' capabilities can be produced by computers…

Riiiiight… so 'intelligence' is… 'playing chess'…     with… the… help… of… humans……hmmm… seems to be 'humans' involved in all the definitions, so far…

YMS wrote:

…up to the point where we may get computer designers producing schematics of cars for robot factories to build.

So,… the human 'designers' produce… and the robots do the donkey work…Obviously, these 'robots' have even less 'intelligence' than the 'computers'!

YMS wrote:

BTW, I am taken with Searles Chinese box argument, but a fully virtualised brain could by-pass the question of intentionality.

You'll have to bring out the relevance of this for communists, comrade. I'm in the dark.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…we create greater than human intelligence, and brain simulation…

Isn't this really a philosophical problem, rather than a computing problem?That is, we humans can't yet define 'intelligence', never mind 'duplicate' it!And surely 'brain simulation' is not simply the same as 'consciousness'?

YMS wrote:

Of course, this opens up the door to concepts such as advanced computers planning the economy, and using artificial minds for all sorts of expert systems…

The bourgeois dream! Expert systems!Then they can remove the brains out of those pesky proletarians, who have needs and desires that 'advanced computers' with their 'artificial minds' cannot even dream of!Oops… we need dreams for production… damn…

[LBird]

Alf wrote:

If you want to call these factors 'objective', OK. There is never a total separation between subjective and objective. But if you call everything objective, where does that leave the subjective factor?

[my bold]The 'subjective' factor is class-conscious action.From what I can tell, comrades here are arguing that, to have that form of subjective action, requires the pre-existence of the objective factor of 'class-consciousness'.On the contrary, if 'consciousness' is defined as a subjective factor, and thus doesn't need to be in existence at the point of action, it only requires someone else with the necessary consciousness to provide it to the still unconscious proletariat, which will, during that process, learn it from the 'someone else'.As I've said to you (and the ICC) before, I'm not a Leninist, and I think that the proletariat has to have a class consciousness before it can take this subjective action. I don't think this can be acquired during the process itself, because the process will be driven by the existing level of consciousness that obtains at the point of action. If the proletariat is still dominated by ruling class ideas, this backwardness will shape the course of events, to our detriment.Unless, that is, the unconscious proletariat has a willing and helpful teacher to hold its hand whilst it develops itself, and to scold it if it doesn't pay attention.Seems an unlikely series of events to me, comrade.The proletariat must have come to teach.

[Author]

Posts