Let robots be \"babies\" first... (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 28, 2011, 23:35 (5047 days ago) @ David Turell

No... my objection is similar to George's but not the same. Amazement or incredulousness (which is exactly your emotion here) simply isn't enough to justify a grand design. > 
> > At some point we all need to make a decision about what's important to us, philosophically. Knowledge is important. In my view, knowledge is all. I long ago abandoned truth for knowledge; relativity for predictability. 
> > 
> > As I've said often enough, we are firmly trapped in terms of our means to study the universe. I accept the limitations; you go beyond them. 
> 
> We always come back to the same wall between us. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt was good enough for Adler, it is good enough for me.-Adler was philosophically misguided; the goal of philosophy is a search for truth yes--however you cannot take a position of truth based on reason alone. Inference however nicely dressed up it is, isn't knowledge, and also isn't truth. It's an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be! The same reason I don't say "God doesn't exist" is the same reason I don't say "God exists." -Our difference is less a wall and more a difference of style. As a doctor, you were undoubtedly trained to trust your instincts--a good doctor takes the ambiguous evidence presented to him and makes a judgement. But there's a wisdom that comes through experience where I guarantee you felt more of what was the right choice. Intuition guided by empiricism. Doctors make decisions all the time on incomplete data, and you learn to trust that developed and honed instinct. I've watched it happen. -My training--Computer Science and Math is really a diametric opposite in style. We're trained (and we experience) that our intuitions as humans are too linear to be trusted for complex questions. Have a problem? It's the data. Not the data? It's the logic. Nothing can be ambiguous. If your problem is ambiguous, you can't engineer a solution, as simple as that. -Really in the end I'm just pointing out that there's a good reason for our differences--partly due to training--and that I don't see this as a wall as much as an opportunity to gain a different perspective.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"