Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

will models make our thinking clear?

sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:42:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 9:15:42 AM, ark200 wrote:
will models make our thinking clear? will models be used to clarify our thoughts?

No, generally they cause men to get boners and get distracted and give women feelings of envy and inadequacy.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 8:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:42:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/3/2015 9:15:42 AM, ark200 wrote:
will models make our thinking clear? will models be used to clarify our thoughts?

No, generally they cause men to get boners and get distracted and give women feelings of envy and inadequacy.

Good one. It is nice to be in the company of a natural wit.

Ark; all concepts are models, essentially analogies. Duns Scotus, and this is paraphrase realized that between the thought and the thing there is a abyss of difference, called Heterogeneity, and yet there are points of agreement: Homogeneity, and the bridge between these two is called analogy. If we could capture the reality with our concepts it would be possible to reproduce the thing out of raw matter. While this is some times possible with simple physical objects, we could not do it with anything as complex as a cell or a larvae.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 8:10:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Computer models won't help because computers only tell you what you tell it to. Even an algorithm won't work as that too will only tell you what you tell it to.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ark200
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 9:52:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 8:10:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
Computer models won't help because computers only tell you what you tell it to. Even an algorithm won't work as that too will only tell you what you tell it to.

but philosophers of the past used model to think clearly. hypatia used models of Ptolemy's universe or Copernicus studied the model of geocentric universe etc. for example.

won't models help us predict future event more clearly than without model?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 9:15:42 AM, ark200 wrote:
will models make our thinking clear? will models be used to clarify our thoughts?

Of course, that"s the whole point of modeling.

They are typically developed and used to isolate relevant features of a process or subject in order to clarify thinking about certain aspects of that process or subject, either visually, operationally, or quantitatively. Scientifically, you could consider an experiment to be a model, and mathematically, a formula is a model.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 8:35:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 5:39:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 9:15:42 AM, ark200 wrote:
will models make our thinking clear? will models be used to clarify our thoughts?

Of course, that"s the whole point of modeling.

They are typically developed and used to isolate relevant features of a process or subject in order to clarify thinking about certain aspects of that process or subject, either visually, operationally, or quantitatively. Scientifically, you could consider an experiment to be a model, and mathematically, a formula is a model.

All forms are concepts, and all concepts are either a definition or a set of definitions, the conceptual manifold. Consider all we know of a dog, as Genus, Species, Phylum, and every thing we know of the biology of the beast. We still do no know when we meet one if it will bite; but we will certainly know that it can bite. We can still be certain if we try to examine the dog, or even a fossil dog, that no part of the beast existed without cause. This is not proved, but is axiomatic. I think it was Aquinas who said: nature is not surfeit with superfluities, -Occam razor. Animals needing only four legs are seldom born with 5.

As we are created out of a certain necessity, as all things are formed out of a certain necessity, as form follow function we are modeling reality in a fashion that in time becomes the theory of evolution, with is a comprehensive model.

Numbers too are a model of reality, as are all of our principals of conservation and identity. To say that I do not get numbers is an understatement. Identity- one is one stops me from forward progress. One penny is in gross the equal of another penny. In reality they are absolutely different. At some point the model of the penny, its meaning becomes more forceful than the fact.

We accept the equality of people. One man is the equal of another. We know this is not true, so it is the concept of the individual rather than the reality the makes men equal. The principal- Man is Man become man equals man, and practical people looking a men or people as real see the obvious differences between us, and exploit them. Science as a model of reality, and metaphysics as a model of reality say that men are equal. Humanity is made up of people equal in seeing their own unique-ness, and in Social Darwinism, as seeing themselves as the judge of their fellow's fitness to survive.

So you see; it is not all about understanding. People only need to know enough to survive, and with their knowledge a scientist is the same as a general is the same as a criminal. When people act without a moral sense they act blindly no matter how much knowledge they have, and moral knowledge cannot be modeled and is based upon pathos and ethos, and these are emotional connections gained in life pre-rationally. Physical knowledge with all its concepts and form and models and definitions is easy- compared to moral understanding simply because there is no proper model for morality
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 8:38:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 9:15:42 AM, ark200 wrote:
will models make our thinking clear? will models be used to clarify our thoughts?

- If you mean by Model, a philosophical one, that is to say a systematic logical relationship between a group of Universals & Particulars, then YES. Models are at the heart of Thought:
> The Modes of Reasoning are Models based on which one can think rationally.
> Languages are Models linking Universals with Particulars under a Conceptual Mode of Reasoning (Definitions, Conventions & Categorisations).
> Theories are Models linking Universals to Particulars through many Modes of Reasoning (namely: Inductive, Abductive, Successive)
> Mathematics is a Model linking Universals under a Deductive Mode of Reasoning.
... (etc).
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 3:48:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:42:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/3/2015 9:15:42 AM, ark200 wrote:
will models make our thinking clear? will models be used to clarify our thoughts?

No, generally they cause men to get boners and get distracted and give women feelings of envy and inadequacy.

Ahh ha ha ha! perfect.
there is no progress without compromise"
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 3:55:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 8:10:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
Computer models won't help because computers only tell you what you tell it to. Even an algorithm won't work as that too will only tell you what you tell it to.

Yes and no, computers are a strange thing like us, in that they are more than the sum of their parts in many ways. We do program them, but they constantly exceed our own capabilities in many ways, and also present these answers far faster than we can. If we're talking about AI, then they are light years behind us, and I think will contunue to be for quite some time.

Computer models are already being used to predict econimic forecasts and many other things for example with far more accuracy than the programmers even imagined. Algorighms are used to extend the thoughts of the programmer in a way he or she could never do on their own, expecially in the timeframe in which its done. That being said, computers have a LONG way to go before they are on our level in the way that matters to many of us (AI) but still have many useful purposes in their current states.
there is no progress without compromise"
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 10:17:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 3:55:39 AM, Student4Life1975 wrote:
At 2/3/2015 8:10:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
Computer models won't help because computers only tell you what you tell it to. Even an algorithm won't work as that too will only tell you what you tell it to.

Yes and no, computers are a strange thing like us, in that they are more than the sum of their parts in many ways. We do program them, but they constantly exceed our own capabilities in many ways, and also present these answers far faster than we can. If we're talking about AI, then they are light years behind us, and I think will contunue to be for quite some time.

Computer models are already being used to predict econimic forecasts and many other things for example with far more accuracy than the programmers even imagined. Algorighms are used to extend the thoughts of the programmer in a way he or she could never do on their own, expecially in the timeframe in which its done. That being said, computers have a LONG way to go before they are on our level in the way that matters to many of us (AI) but still have many useful purposes in their current states.

Just because a computer can make calculations faster doesn't make it smarter. Man had to program every single calculation. And man had to tell it how to use the calculations. A computer does what it is told to do. A computer model will give the result it is told to give. That's why you never hear about computer models that don't give the intended results.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:10:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 10:17:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/24/2015 3:55:39 AM, Student4Life1975 wrote:
At 2/3/2015 8:10:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
Computer models won't help because computers only tell you what you tell it to. Even an algorithm won't work as that too will only tell you what you tell it to.

Yes and no, computers are a strange thing like us, in that they are more than the sum of their parts in many ways. We do program them, but they constantly exceed our own capabilities in many ways, and also present these answers far faster than we can. If we're talking about AI, then they are light years behind us, and I think will contunue to be for quite some time.

Computer models are already being used to predict econimic forecasts and many other things for example with far more accuracy than the programmers even imagined. Algorighms are used to extend the thoughts of the programmer in a way he or she could never do on their own, expecially in the timeframe in which its done. That being said, computers have a LONG way to go before they are on our level in the way that matters to many of us (AI) but still have many useful purposes in their current states.

Just because a computer can make calculations faster doesn't make it smarter. Man had to program every single calculation. And man had to tell it how to use the calculations. A computer does what it is told to do. A computer model will give the result it is told to give. That's why you never hear about computer models that don't give the intended results.

It may be prudent to define Intelligence here, and to me its not just the ability to make choices and conscious decisions, which as i've mentioned previously computers are so far behind us in this field its not even worth talking about in that regard.

Intelligence to me, has multiple categories that comprise of many different areas that in the end contribute to an overall ability to provide answers to questions that are asked of it. You are correct in that people program computers and as a result people create the limits of what the computer can achieve based on the programming, but I think of programming as more of "rules" that are established that the colputer programs can then work with...sort of a framework if you will. We can then pose questions to the program, and it will process the information and provide an answer. To me that is a form of intelligence, however rudimentary it is. When the calculator was invented (in the digital form we're all familiar with) I highly suspect the people who did so had to sit down and work out all of the countless mathematical equations that the calculator is capable of procucing answers for, and progam them into it before it was considered finished. By this I mean, taking a pen to paper and writing out every math problem then programming it into the calculator so it could then duplicate that answer when it comes up again in the future. Instead they program it to follow mathematical rules which are then used to extrapolate answers that we could not easily duplicate on paper ourselves. Yes we are still programming the computer, but not with specific code to answer each problem but with rules in which it has to follow, and thus result in answers based on that. There is a difference to me. I have used a calculator for many math problems i could not have resolved myself, so to me the calculator is more intelligent than i am in that regard.

Speed is also a consideration, because to me if it comes to an answer faster than I can its more intelligent than I am in that instance. If this wasnt a consideration there would be no time limits on Educational institution exams, like grades 1-12, College and University. Timeframes are vitally important in meeting deadlines, and if two people come to the same conclusions on a problem but one does it in half the time, I would certainly see him or her as more intelligent..certainly more efficient.

"2/22/2011 " In 1997 Deep Blue defeated the world chess champion Garry Kasparov in a six-game match. It was considered a stunning achievement and a significant step forward in the field of artificial intelligence. Fourteen years later another IBM computer that is about 100 times faster than Deep Blue beat the best humans in an exhibition game of Jeopardy " and received world-wide attention." - In both instances many of the programmers admitted the outcomes greatly surpassed their own expecations.

"intended results" are greatly a matter of interpretation. Both of the Examples above when first created and tested gave results that greatly surprised the programmers, but also in a bad way as being underachievers in the beginning. Many of the programmers when interviewed and asked what they expected to see, simply didnt have an answer. They were simply waiting to see what happened, so how can that be interpreted as knowing the intended results? They knew what they hoped would happen, but truly had no idea. Granted there wa a Human opponent in these cases which introduced an element that negated the programmers ability to predict the overall outcome of each event, but what i'm talking about is the computer reacting to what the opponent did in each case. Which should have been predictable but was not.

"An adaptive algorithm is an algorithm that changes its behavior based on information available at the time it is run" - This is the monkey wrench that allows computers to behave in ways programmers could never have predicted based on their initial programming parameters. It is considered my many experts in Computer Science the first step in Artificial Intelligence, and is already displaying characteristics of intelligence, however low on the scale it may be.
there is no progress without compromise"