Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

cs.utexas.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#31

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

jamesrcole wrote: post #25
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a threshold in information processing capabilities, yes. But could you describe these information processing capabilities? Since evolution does process information about iterative states, it's not the mere existence of feedback, so there must be some threshold in capabilities that requires crossing. Please describe them in a manner that includes or excludes as you see fit babies, cats, and bacteria but doesn't lea…

Describing how evolution works, and why it is completely blind, is not something for the size constraints of a HN comment. I'd recommend books like Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable", or Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for good, readable descriptions.

I'm well aware of how evolution works. I disagree with your assessment that it's any blinder of a process than your own will is.

I'm especially skeptical when you can't even describe the distinction in the span of a few paragraphs and instead resort to ad hominems.

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#32

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

goatlover wrote: post #27
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a threshold in information processing capabilities, yes. But could you describe these information processing capabilities? Since evolution does process information about iterative states, it's not the mere existence of feedback, so there must be some threshold in capabilities that requires crossing. Please describe them in a manner that includes or excludes as you see fit babies, cats, and bacteria but doesn't lea…

> Since evolution does process information about iterative states Evolution is a computer? > Please describe them in a manner that includes or excludes as you see fit babies, cats, and bacteria but doesn't leave it a continuum What's the cutoff between a heap of and non-heap?

Evolution does compute in the broad sense, yes.

My exact point is there isn't such a meaningful distinction. I'm challenging people who think there is a distinction to elaborate on that.

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#33

Post by vectorpush »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #9
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does a baby have a will? How about a cat? Bacterium? I'm actually curious why people believe one emergent system does (eg, people) but another doesn't (eg, evolution/biosphere). What lets you determine when a composite object or pattern in an automata has crossed that threshold?

> What lets you determine when a composite object or pattern in an automata has crossed that threshold? There isn't really a threshold beyond that pattern or object somehow communicating to you that it does indeed possess a will or some form of consciousness. The default assumption is to assume it doesn't until it shows it does instead of invoking an animist world view that imbues a spirit to every complex phenomenon…

> There isn't really a threshold beyond that pattern or object somehow communicating to you that it does indeed possess a will or some form of consciousness

I agree. It is a further anthropomorphism to even assume that the integrated sensory and memory perception phenomenon that we apparently experience as consciousness is inherently "human" in its quality rather than something more qualitatively similar to the bending of space-time by matter. An incidental consequence of homeostasis is that arbitrary pieces of matter are somehow a "self" and a cluster of sensory signals are somehow an "experience". The animist view isn't even necessary if we do not insist that "consciousness" be "a state of existence" for thinking creatures to "have" or not.

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#34

Post by fenomas »

jamesrcole wrote: post #25
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a threshold in information processing capabilities, yes. But could you describe these information processing capabilities? Since evolution does process information about iterative states, it's not the mere existence of feedback, so there must be some threshold in capabilities that requires crossing. Please describe them in a manner that includes or excludes as you see fit babies, cats, and bacteria but doesn't lea…

Describing how evolution works, and why it is completely blind, is not something for the size constraints of a HN comment. I'd recommend books like Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable", or Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for good, readable descriptions.

I think the point here was more that saying people have will but evolution doesn't is a lot like saying fish swim but submarines don't. Obviously the two can be distinguished, but we distinguish them because we look at the mechanisms by which the function - whereas if we only looked at the externalities, we might consider them one and the same.

Personally I think it's quite an interesting point; much moreso than the point you seem to have replied to (i.e. the notion that evolution isn't blind, which I don't think GP was arguing by any stretch).

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#35

Post by jamesrcole »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #31
jamesrcole wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Describing how evolution works, and why it is completely blind, is not something for the size constraints of a HN comment. I'd recommend books like Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable", or Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for good, readable descriptions.

I'm well aware of how evolution works. I disagree with your assessment that it's any blinder of a process than your own will is. I'm especially skeptical when you can't even describe the distinction in the span of a few paragraphs and instead resort to ad hominems.

First, what ad hominems? Show me what you're referring to.

I think you misunderstand what I said. The sort of information processing in something like a nervous system can hardly be characterised as blind.

Also, if it can easily be done in a few paragraphs then why did people have to write books hundreds of pages long (which still get misunderstood)?

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#36

Post by vectorpush »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #31
jamesrcole wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Describing how evolution works, and why it is completely blind, is not something for the size constraints of a HN comment. I'd recommend books like Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable", or Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for good, readable descriptions.

I'm well aware of how evolution works. I disagree with your assessment that it's any blinder of a process than your own will is. I'm especially skeptical when you can't even describe the distinction in the span of a few paragraphs and instead resort to ad hominems.

> I disagree with your assessment that it's any blinder of a process than your own will is.

I understand what you're saying, but the two concepts cannot be effectively compared. An organism's "will" is a label for the reactive tendencies we observe in physical systems that exhibit homeostasis, whereas evolution is the description of a physical process that is perpetually ongoing and has no physically discrete meaning.

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#37

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

vectorpush wrote: post #36
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of how evolution works. I disagree with your assessment that it's any blinder of a process than your own will is. I'm especially skeptical when you can't even describe the distinction in the span of a few paragraphs and instead resort to ad hominems.

> I disagree with your assessment that it's any blinder of a process than your own will is. I understand what you're saying, but the two concepts cannot be effectively compared. An organism's "will" is a label for the reactive tendencies we observe in physical systems that exhibit homeostasis, whereas evolution is the description of a physical process that is perpetually ongoing and has no physically discrete meaning…

Your commemt is no more insightful than "I understand how to draw a box around one of them".

"You" as an entity are really just a process emergent from chemical reactions on some area, and your "will" is just the result of feedback between many regions of that process and outside stimuli.

Biological evolution is a process happening in more dispersed reactions, but still has all manner of internal feedback mechanisms and responds to external stimuli.

I don't see how you've drawn a meaningful distinction between them, except to say that one os easy to observe in total (eg, you can draw a box around it) and is sort of like you, so you feel you can understand it.

Homeostasis and physical locality don't seem partocularly germane traits when discussing whether or not something has a will.

Further, you (just as evolution) are ongoing until you're not, and "physically discrete meaning" sounds like a dressed up "well, I just know it when I see it".

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#38

Post by opportune »

gizmo686 wrote: post #18
GuiA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been learning Japanese for a bit over a year now, and while I am still very far away from being happy with my level in the language, I definitely noticed a distinct shift for the better in my understanding of the language and how fast I picked up new grammatical constructs etc when I stopped trying to contrast it to the western languages I already knew. You have to accept that Japanese grammar might have some ba…

Speaking as someone who is studying both linguistics and Japanese, this this type of comment is just cringy to read. In the grand scheme of potential "languages" Japanese and English (as well as all natural human languages; including signed languages) have incredibly similar grammars. It is only when you restrict your view to the range of human languages that Japanese and English start to look incredibly different. W…

What a needlessly pedantic and condescending reply

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#39

Post by PhasmaFelis »

gizmo686 wrote: post #18
GuiA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been learning Japanese for a bit over a year now, and while I am still very far away from being happy with my level in the language, I definitely noticed a distinct shift for the better in my understanding of the language and how fast I picked up new grammatical constructs etc when I stopped trying to contrast it to the western languages I already knew. You have to accept that Japanese grammar might have some ba…

Speaking as someone who is studying both linguistics and Japanese, this this type of comment is just cringy to read. In the grand scheme of potential "languages" Japanese and English (as well as all natural human languages; including signed languages) have incredibly similar grammars. It is only when you restrict your view to the range of human languages that Japanese and English start to look incredibly different. W…

> Speaking as someone who is studying both linguistics and Japanese, this this type of comment is just cringy to read. In the grand scheme of potential "languages" Japanese and English (as well as all natural human languages; including signed languages) have incredibly similar grammars. It is only when you restrict your view to the range of human languages that Japanese and English start to look incredibly different.

That seems like a total non sequitur. Do you also find the expression "like comparing apples to oranges" cringey, since apples and oranges are quite similar when compared to black holes?

Re: On anthropomorphism in science (1985)

#40

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

fenomas wrote: post #34
jamesrcole wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Describing how evolution works, and why it is completely blind, is not something for the size constraints of a HN comment. I'd recommend books like Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable", or Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" for good, readable descriptions.

I think the point here was more that saying people have will but evolution doesn't is a lot like saying fish swim but submarines don't. Obviously the two can be distinguished, but we distinguish them because we look at the mechanisms by which the function - whereas if we only looked at the externalities, we might consider them one and the same. Personally I think it's quite an interesting point; much moreso than the…

I always found it interesting to ask if my fish toy swims: it has a fish shape and propels itself through the water by wiggling its tail.

Similarly, if cephalopods swim. And if they do, why not jetskis?

Also, I was arguing it, but mostly to see the responses -- everyone seems so sure it is, and yet, the answers come down to "because it doesn't remind me of monkey cognition". (Similar to why I asked about animism -- everyone is so sure it was wrong, but doesn't seem to know why.)

Post reply on HN