Knowledge

[Kaze Araki]

Standard Epistemic questions;
What is knowledge?
Is it attainable?
If so, how do we prove it?

 

[Biomega]

Knowledge is the psychological result of perception, learning(aka gaining information, skills and etc) and reasoning.(I copy pastad this)

Yes, it is attainable.

[YOUTUBE]wACltn9QpCc[/YOUTUBE]

In the above video clip, scientist at the University of Reading's are using a biological brain. To actually fully understand the working of the brain and make it even clearer how the brain functions.

In that experiment, they used cultured biological brain of a rat, and embedded it in a robot. Basically, the robot runs on a real brain rather than ICs - but the connections are made using electrical stimulations. The robot learns(attains knowledge), when it is up against a wall or a bump, and then takes another course.

The creator of Jeeney(an A.I) says this in his page:
[SPOILERA]

I am writing this article because it seems to me that most people assume it is impossible for computers to be intelligent and the general consensus seems to be that if it was at all possible, it would have to be off in the distant future. I am not writing anything in-depth here, this is just some concepts I thought I’d throw out for public consideration.

Maybe there is more to machines than we are willing to accept just yet.

Intelligence in the eyes of most people seems to separate humanity from animals and machinery; but what is it exactly? According to dictionary.com, intelligence is defined as “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.”

This definition covers a lot of things, how can we break this down and apply it to artificial life?

Learning
Starting at the beginning of the definition we must first look at ways in which the human mind learns in order to understand the relevance of machine learning techniques.

Most people learn through a variety of methods, a one-on-one teacher, hands-on activities, visual memory (ex: reading or viewing illustrations.) Some people need to listen to a concept and have it broken down a few different ways in order for it to make sense, often this means multiple teachers.

Now, looking at these things from a mechanical perspective, all of the above mentioned learning techniques used by regular people can be summed up simply enough as “input.”
Most people and animals have 5 senses to work with for gathering this input. Without fancy gadgetry a computer typically only has one input method we can use to interact with it; the text that you can type into it with a keyboard. Obviously by default, humans have quite an advantage in terms of variety in learning but this advantage doesn’t automatically make people smarter or give them more potential.

The next step after receiving input is to analyze it, match it up with other forms of related input that has already been acquired and register a conclusion, or again in mechanical terms “output”.

Output has some interesting functionality to it, we store it in our memory until it is needed or updated, when it is needed, we call the output and pass the information to another person.

Computers have been able to do these things since the start of the digital age but let’s take a look into some of the other aspects of intelligence as it is defined.

Reasoning and understanding
How do we reason? Well, as people we always want what is best or “optimal” in every circumstance, our bodies tell us through touch when we stumble into painful and pleasurable stimuli. This is an automatic defense mechanism we were born with; it helps to keep us out of trouble. Most people generally don’t have to burn themselves too often before they realize that this is a bad situation and should be avoided wherever possible. At the same time, trying different flavours of ice cream will yield a favorite as there will be one that appeals to your tastes more so than others.

So to be summed up, our reasoning is based on a set of scales that weigh the good and the bad, in any given situation we will always aim for the best possible outcome, even when we do not have enough information to make an accurate measurement.

This can easily be reconstructed in computers as well, we’d simply have to input a range of positive and negative circumstances into the program and code it to find the optimal setting for any given situation. (I’m speaking generally here, doing this in a literal sense directly interacting with each element would take more time than our life spans would allow.)

Actually, this practice is used in simplicity already in almost every computer program available today, but it’s called “error catching”. Programmers will try to trap errors before they happen, telling the program that when this situation occurs something must be done to fix or compensate the problem.

Grasping truths, facts, relationships and meanings.
I’ve grouped these ones all together because as I see it, they can all be summed up the same way, and tie into the functionality I’ve already talked about. The only real difference here is the addition of a functionality to find the averages. If one person tells you that the movie “Untouchables” was awful and that you shouldn’t bother wasting your money on a ticket and yet, five other friends of yours tell you the movie was great and well worth the $10.00, you will factor in your own likes and dislikes according to what you know of the movie and then if you are impartial you will probably listen to the majority vote, (unless of course, you are strapped for cash, then you will wait until it comes out on DVD.)

In this scenario, the verbal input was slightly varied having a strong positive and a small negative factor. Weighing these factors you came to a conclusion that it’s probably not such a bad movie, then of course you weigh in the expense verses budget and if that gives a green light you may watch the movie, and then your own experiences will determine as to whether or not you enjoyed the movie. If you didn’t like it at all, you may discredit your five friends and apply more credit to the one guy for the next time.

Anything that can be explained logically and applied mathematically can be duplicated easily in a computer, after all, the computer’s base code is comprised on 1s and 0s a mathematical binary language that allows the computer to store and respond to data which is the primary stimuli for a machine verses touch sensory for people like us.

So what are the main differences?
Computers don’t have as many different kinds of input, or output as we do, though that can easily be changed over time, also, we’ve never put enough effort into making a computer just like us in these regards, in some ways we underestimate the complexity of the human mind and how it interacts with our bodies, and in other ways it’s over-rated. When you boil it all down, it’s a matter of perception and openness to the differences.

To ask the question, will computers ever think like us? It might be more important to first consider whether or not we would accept it even if they were.

[/SPOILERA]

Yes, robots learn new things. A robot that was designed to learned, it learned how to move by itself(without it having programmed to move), just like a baby. And now adapted its own method to move; it used trial and error, experimented on different types of movement, and by reasoning it followed the most fluid movement(that even the designer could not think of) based on his past experiences. Now, this is really scary. This is what frightens us.

Anyway, from such experiments, we can all say what intelligence and knowledge is.

If it's not that, then what is it?

 

[Kaze Araki]

If it's not that, then what is it?

At the very least; Justified True Believe ( JTB ), even though this alone does not prove that we "know" what we thought we "know" (as Gettier famously argued).

 

[Biomega]

Umm... I think mine should be in the 'Conscious' thread. I should steer clear from metaphysical debates. I feel ashamed.

At the very least; Justified True Believe ( JTB ), even though this alone does not prove that we "know" what we thought we "know" (as Gettier famously argued).

We know what we thought we know, then what is there that we know?

 

[Kaze Araki]

We know what we thought we know, then what is there that we know?

That is what religious people needs to answer.

 

[Diva Elly]

"I know I believe that I know."

Indeed something to mull over. Knowledge is accumulation of facts that set foundation to our perception of reality. Of course, reality itself is completely independent on our perception of it. While it is indeed attainable, knowledge itself can be incorrect. Humans' nature as a society and somewhat a "pack" explain how knowledge we share seems to be all the same and shared.

...doesn't by any means make our "superior human knowledge and intellect", though. Hope I caught on to the point of this conversation, gentlemen.

 

[Kaze Araki]

How do you know that "reality itself is completely independent on [from?] our perception of it"?

 

[Diva Elly]

There was a once a reality without humans, no? Before we had knowledge.

And I don't "know", for certain. That'd be knowledge, now wouldn't it?

 

[Kaze Araki]

There was a once a reality without humans, no? Before we had knowledge.

How do you know this?

And I don't "know", for certain. That'd be knowledge, now wouldn't it?

No.

 

[Diva Elly]

How do you know there wasn't? It's not like either of us have proof. Don't play that game when you don't have a solid ground for your statement either.

 

[Kaze Araki]

How do you know there wasn't?

But I never claimed that there wasn't.

It's not like either of us have proof.

You're confusing things.
I never made any claim, what proof should I provide?
I'm merely asking the proof for your claim, which is standard for critical thinkers.
The burden of proof lies in your hands, not mine.

Don't play that game when you don't have a solid ground for your statement either.

Again, what statement did I made?
I'm only questioning your claim.

 

[Diva Elly]

Questioned mine, yes. If you read my previous response closely enough, you'd see I don't have any proof nor do I claim to have such. But there is no proof of the opposite or any other alternatives either. Where does that leave us then? Believing in the knowledge the world provides us like I did.

Critical thinker or someone who can only question what I say... hm.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Questioned mine, yes. If you read my previous response closely enough, you'd see I don't have any proof nor do I claim to have such.

You're confusing things yet again. You put out claims, and I asked you for the logic behind your assertions, to which - you said you don't have any proof to support your claim. But then you went on a tangent by claiming that;

But there is no proof of the opposite or any other alternatives either.

Now, I don't even know what "the opposite or any other alternatives" suppose to mean here. You put out a claim that has no proof, and later argue that the opposite of your claim or any other alternatives lack proof either. What are these "the opposite or any other alternatives"? And why are they lack proof also - just like your claims?

Where does that leave us then? Believing in the knowledge the world provides us like I did.

This statement does not seems to make any sense, furthermore; I think this is the origin of your confusion.

Critical thinker or someone who can only question what I say... hm.

It's not that I can't put out my own argument, but the series of questions that I gave you were meant as hints for the inevitable conclusion.

Regardless of everything, let us sort out the confusion first;

According to you; Knowledge is accumulation of facts that set foundation to our perception of reality.

Before we continue, I need you to define first for the word "facts", what does it mean?

 

[Diva Elly]

Facts, as in things we consider to be true no matter what situation, i.e "boiling water feels hot". Hope that doesn't further confuse things.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Facts, as in things we consider to be true no matter what situation, i.e "boiling water feels hot". Hope that doesn't further confuse things.

To clarify your definition one more time:

By the above; do you mean fact has absolute value (true no matter what situation);
e.g. I and everyone else sees and touches a car in front of us.

Or do you mean fact has relative value;
e.g. I and everyone else sees and touches a car in front of us, but we may not necessarily be seeing and touching a car.

 

[-lexus-]

No knowledge, its not attainable. It does not exist. All you have are stimuli, impulses on which a human reacts, including having the thoughts that he has or 'remembering' things. Without the right stimuli you cant access it.

 

[Arachna]

Do you mean..like emotions?
For example..
Your mind is dominated by a single group of emotions.
An intuitive decision making process selects the current emotion.
Since the current emotion is broadcast in the outer layers of the cortex, the emotion affects your recalled memories and motor responses?
Or..not?

 

[Kaze Araki]

Knowledge as defined by Plato ( JTB ) - at the very least.
Although it has been famously pointed out by Gettier that these alone aren't enough.
In short, this is an Epistemic discussion.

 

[Arachna]

You know i would say Edmund Gettier's problem is actually quite interesting thing to mention. Since you already did mention him.

Since Gettier cases not need to involve any inference.
There are possible cases of justified true belief in which the subject fails to have knowledge although condition is met.

Btw..
You could also say doxastic ...right?lol
I am gonna edit this since it seems the joke didn't pass..it is a shame.

Ok here is a question.

Can intuition be pre-learned knowledge?
It may affect, your ways to arrive at a theory.

Your theory about any situation can be discovered by asking yourself a hypothetical question.
Your intuition instantly evaluates everything you know to deliver an answer.

So..can that be considered as a part of the way we "learn" ?
A way of obtaining informations? Or to say ..of knowledge?

If i didn't make any sense that is also ok. <.< It constantly happens.

 

[-lexus-]

You know i would say Edmund Gettier's problem is actually quite interesting thing to mention. Since you already did mention him.

Since Gettier cases not need to involve any inference.
There are possible cases of justified true belief in which the subject fails to have knowledge although condition is met.

Btw..
You could also say doxastic ...right?lol
I am gonna edit this since it seems the joke didn't pass..it is a shame.

Ok here is a question.

Can intuition be pre-learned knowledge?
It may affect, your ways to arrive at a theory.

Your theory about any situation can be discovered by asking yourself a hypothetical question.
Your intuition instantly evaluates everything you know to deliver an answer.

So..can that be considered as a part of the way we "learn" ?
A way of obtaining informations? Or to say ..of knowledge?

If i didn't make any sense that is also ok. <.< It constantly happens.

No, because your intuition can be false. Intuition is what feels/smells/sounds about right, regardless of whatever you know. Its closer to a reflex then anything else.

As for JTB, it sounds closer to guessing and finding out the results later on than actually knowing. Sure, you have solid reasons on which you make the guess or assumption, but you dont actually know from the start. Thats why Gettier was able to punch big holes in the whole JTB thing. He basically shows (at least from what I get from it) that JTB is making educated guesses which then turn out to be not entirely true but true at the same time through chance. People guessed it right by accident.