|
82
|
1 [HST spent too long trying to get the astonishing fact of language
|
|
|
2 evolution on the table as something which deserves a place in GA]
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
4 The inscrutability of the size of Universe is another thing that
|
|
|
5 defies comprehension.
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
7 If it's just chance that we happen to have come to be in a corner of
|
|
|
8 that Universe where recursive compositional expressive mechanisms are
|
|
|
9 possible the unlikelihood isn't an argument against it being the case.
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
11 Suppose I were to say to a high-school class we agree to have
|
|
|
12 recursively-specifiable syntactic and semantic language, and have a
|
|
|
13 brain that produces and consumes its product, and yes, it's unlikely
|
|
|
14 in the extreme, but so-be-it.
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16 Is there anything to conclude from that.
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18 Imagine the course we're teaching, and a typology of unlikelihoods,
|
|
|
19 smallness and small-enough-ness. Very^4 unlikely that we'll gasp for
|
|
|
20 breath because the oxygen has all left the room. Do we have to have a
|
|
|
21 view on whether there's a universe almost like ours where the same
|
|
|
22 UUID _does_ get minted for two different objects?
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24 What are we doing? We want to... MacIntyre says we need 'real'
|
|
|
25 language to reflect on/assess our beliefs and desires. Evolved
|
|
|
26 corners of the universe that have the requisite properties that [this
|
|
|
27 process] can be enjoined are astonishingly unlikely, but we are
|
|
|
28 evidently in one.
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
30 What more do we need, in order to have intentionality.
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
32 [HST] MacIntyre grants (persistent of) categorisations
|
|
|
33 [BCS] Sufficient, or Necessary? [HST] I'll take that as a homework assignment
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35 [BCS] Suppose we have a minimal 'higher' animal: persistent individuals and
|
|
|
36 categorisation. Do you have anything yet that reeks of the religious?
|
|
|
37 My intuition is 'no'. The critter has to stand up on its hind legs
|
|
|
38 and _wonder_, in order for there to be... in order for its finitude,
|
|
|
39 one might say, to lead it to [HST ask Why?][ref. _Child's Christmas in
|
|
|
40 Wales]
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42 MacIntyre on Davidson? Counterfactuals are crucial to practical
|
|
|
43 reasoning. BCS says I could imagine a counterfactual toting rational
|
|
|
44 argumenter, who still lacks this openness to God and to wonder.
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
46 And until an AI system can wonder, I won't be particularly
|
|
|
47 interested/concerned, it will still be a mere machine.
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
49 Haugeland distinguishes the impossible from the possible but not
|
|
|
50 actual from the actual.
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
52 "A blue proton" gets you in to trouble.
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
54 With respect of our project, and the opening salvos of GA, there is a
|
|
|
55 need to characterise the territory that we want to open up, and
|
|
|
56 something has to be very open to not reduce to boring behaviourism.
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
58 The speaker has to be gripped by a certain openness, a certain
|
|
|
59 possibility, will this cake rise whatever. How to open the space
|
|
|
60 enough for wonder to be genuinely gripping, seems important.
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
62 We want people to want to read this after the first page or two, even
|
|
|
63 if they can't say exactly why.
|
