-- >Marc, I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction). Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic pervade his work! Cheers, Günther Yes, good Kim and Gunther- I’m now adopting the radical belief that intelligence has a lot more to do with art, than math ;) Good initial link on aesthetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics So throw away all those math books , forget about Bayes, and start studying the arts: painting, music and so on and so forth. We’ll finally solve the AI stuff…with art. On Jul 30, 2:34 am, Günther Greindl <guenther.grei....domain.name.hidden> wrote: > Marc, > > I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving > principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance > many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction). > > Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic > pervade his work! > > Cheers, > Günther > > > > > > marc.ged....domain.name.hidden wrote: > > Two issues I wish to mention, here. > > > Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality, > > culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and > > morality, all in a few brief sentences ;) > > > Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who > > recently died. > > > As regards the first issue: > > > It’s been said there are clear ways to determine physical and > > mathematical facts, but nothing similar for values. But, in point (2) > > below I point out what appears to be an objectively existing set of > > values which underlies *all* of science. I present two brief but > > profound points that I what readers to consider and ponder carefully: > > > Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from > > a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy > > density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase > > in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the universe was in > > a state with *the lowest possible* entropy. This is expressed in the > > laws of thermodynamics and big bang cosmology. So it simply isn’t true > > that there is no teleology (purpose) built into the universe. The laws > > of thermodynamics and modern cosmology (big bang theory) clearly > > express the fact that there is. > > > Point (2) the whole of science relies on Occam’s razor, the idea that > > the universe is in some sense ‘simple’. It must be emphasized that > > Occam’s razor pervades all of science – it is not simply some sort of > > ‘add on’. As Popper pointed out, an infinite number of theories could > > explain any given set of observations; therefore any inductive > > generalization requires a principle – Occam’s razor – to get any > > useful results at all. > > > Here is the point that most haven’t quite grasped - Occam’s razor is > > *a set of aesthetic principles* - the notion of ‘simplicity’ is *a set > > of aesthetic principles*; Why? Because it is simply another way of > > saying that some representations are more *elegant* than others, which > > is the very notion of aesthetics! I repeat: the whole of science only > > works because of a set of *aesthetic principles* - a *set of values*. > > > If all values are only subjective preferences, it would follow that > > the whole of science relies on subjective preferences. But subjective > > preferences have only existed as long as sentiments – therefore how > > could physical laws have functioned before sentiments? The idea that > > all values are subjective leads to a direct and blatant logical > > contradiction. > > > Both these points are related and simply inexplicable without > > appealing to objective terminal values. At the beginning of time the > > universe was in the simplest possible state (minimal entropy density). > > Why? Occam’s razor is wide-ranging and pervades the whole of science. > > The simple is favored over the complex – that is– Occam’s razor is a > > set of aesthetic value judgments without which not a single Bayesian > > result could be obtained. > > > *Every single Bayesian result rests on these implicit value judgments* > > to set priors. It must be repeated that *not one single scientific > > result could be obtained* without these secret (implicit) value > > judgments which set priors, that our defenders of the Bayesian faith > > on these forums are trying to pretend are not part of science! > > > The secret to intelligence is aesthetics, not Bayesian math. > > Initially, this statement seems preposterous, but the argument in the > > next paragraph is my whole point, so it merits careful reading (the > > paragraph is marked with a * to show this is the crux of this post): > > > *As regards the optimization of science, the leverage obtained from > > setting the priors (Occam’s razor – aesthetics – art) is far greater > > that that obtained from logical manipulations to update probabilities > > based on additional empirical data (math). Remember, the aesthetic > > principles used to set the priors (Occam’s razor) reduce a potentially > > infinite set of possible theories to a manageable (finite) number, > > whereas laborious mathematical probability updates based on incoming > > empirical data (standard Bayesian theory) is only guaranteed to > > converge on the correct theory after an infinite time, and even then > > the reason for the convergence is entirely inexplicable. > > > The * paragraph suggests that aesthetics is the real basis of > > intelligence, not Bayesian math, and further that aesthetic terminal > > values are objectively real. > > > For those who do initially find these claims preposterous, to help > > overcome your initial disbelief, I point to a superb essay from well- > > respected computer hacker, Paul Graham, who explains why aesthetics > > plays a far greater role in science than many have realized: > > > ‘Taste for Makers’:http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html > > > As regards the second issue, I’d like to draw readers’ attention to > > computer scientist Randy Pausch. Randy Pausch was a computer scientist > > who developed the famous ‘Alice’ software to teach programming in a > > virtual reality setting. He was a virtual reality expert, a professor > > in Human-Computer Interaction at Carnegie Mellon University. In > > August, 2007 he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given 3-6 > > months to live. He gave a famous ‘Last Lecture’ which spread virally > > (via ‘YouTube’) and inspired millions (this was followed by a book > > ‘The Last Lecture’). He died on 25th July, 2008 . > > > The Randy Pausch Memorial Footbridge connects the Gates Center for > > Computer Science, with an adjacent arts building, symbolizing the > > bridge between art and science. > > > Randy Pausch Home Page:http://download.srv.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/ > > -- > Günther Greindl > Department of Philosophy of Science > University of Vienna > guenther.grei....domain.name.hidden > > Blog:http://www.complexitystudies.org/ > Thesis:http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---Received on Wed Jul 30 2008 - 06:41:58 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST