From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 23:55:55 MDT
--- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
>
> > Theorem 7: A sentient cannot consistently make
> the
> > value judgement that 'the cognitive mechanisms
> behind
> > value judgements are bad', since the sentient
> would be
> > contradicting itself - he needs to believe in the
> > validity of those very cognitive mechanisms to
> make
> > any value judgements in the first place.
>
> But, a sentient could consistently conclude
>
> X = "the only value of my cognitive mechanisms is
> their ability to correctly
> conclude X"
>
> So your chain of deductions becomes basically
> trivial at this point, due to
> this version of Socrates maxim
>
> "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"
>
> ;-)
I made some mistakes in the way I phrased things. But
I'm sure the general sketch of ideas is correct. I
think the loop-holes can be closed. I'm not sure you
grok what I was getting at.
The fact of the matter is, in order to make any value
judgements at all (irregardless of the truth or
falsity or subjectivity or objectivity of these value
judgements), you need a minimal amount of working
cognitive mechanisms - Induction and Deduction.
Since anything in reality could in principle be
represented with 100% accuracy as a 'conscious
thought' in your mind (IF you were cognitively
enhanced enough), it follows that anything in reality
could be represented by the same underlying cognitive
principles underpinning your value judgments
(Induction, Deduction).
This provides a way to bridge the is/ought gap.
--- Please vist my website: http://www.riemannai.org Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT