Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


whats new at ieet
Ayesha Khanna interviewed by NY Times

David Brin’s EXISTENCE: Official Trailer

How to Talk to an Alien

Religion, Witch Hunts, Homophobia and Human Rights in Africa

At-Home HIV Test Raises Ethical Questions

‪Human Trafficking of Sex Workers‬

Sex Work – Demeaning Practice or Basic Human Right?

Yes, I Am a Believer

Bostrom & Cascio @ Astana Economic Forum

We Are Borg


ieet books

Manna: Two Visions of Humanity’s Future
Author
by Marshall Brain

The Astrobiological Landscape: Philosophical Foundations of the Study of Cosmic Life
by Milan M. Ćirković

Smart Mice, Not-So-Smart People: An Interesting and Amusing Guide to Bioethics
by Arthur Caplan

From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form
by Martine Rothblatt


comments

hankpellissier on 'Yes, I Am a Believer' (May 24, 2012)

Pastor_Alex on 'Yes, I Am a Believer' (May 24, 2012)

Peter Wicks on 'Why Humanists Need to Make the Shift to Post-Atheism' (May 24, 2012)

Terasemian on 'Are You a Facebook Addict?' (May 24, 2012)

Giulio Prisco on 'Yes, I Am a Believer' (May 24, 2012)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv


IEET > Vision > CyborgBuddha > Virtuality > Fellows > Ben Goertzel

Print Email permalink (2) Comments (3851) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Patterns All the Way Down!


Ben Goertzel
Ben Goertzel
Cosmist Manifesto

Posted: Mar 4, 2010

You’ve probably heard the story…

The Eastern guru, holy lice in his beard and all, affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger.

When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant.

When asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle.

When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback ... but quickly replies “Ah, after that it’s turtles all the way down.”

image

(According my son Zebulon, after a few billion turtles, one comes to an enchilada, and after that it’s enchiladas all the way down—but that’s the same basic idea.)

The Peircean view of the universe as Third is much like this amusing parable.

In the realm of Third, it’s patterns all the way down!

There are patterns ... but these patterns must be patterns of arrangement of something, of some “substrate.”

But of what does this substrate consist? This substrate only enters into the realm of Third insofar as it presents itself as a set of observed patterns.

But, patterns in what?

These must be patterns in some substrate.

It’s patterns all the way down!

In the realm of science, the recursion ends with observations that are commonly accepted within some community. Some Master Dataset is accepted by a community as constituting valid observations, and then patterns are recognized in this dataset.

But the recognition of these commonly accepted observations as patterns in individual sense-data—this is where the “patterns all the way down” bottomless recursion is pushed, in the case of science.

You never reach a solid reality whose existence is just known ... not in the realm of Third. Because the only thing that is known is relationship, and a relationship must be a relationship among some entities. But if these entities are part of the realm of Third, then ... etc.

First and Second, in a sense, might seem to bottom out the recursion—but they don’t really, because they are a different order of being.

The nature of life is that we just keep discovering relations among relations among relations ... and relations beneath relations beneath relations ... and never get to a fundamental reality underneath.

This fundamental bottomlessness of the realm of pattern and relationship underlies a lot of other issues that will occur a little later in these pages, including the possibility that our reality is in some sense a “simulation”, and the notion of the universe as a multiverse or multi-multi-...-multiverse.

Turtles on turtles on ... turtles on turtles; patterns in patterns ... in patterns in patterns.

Mathematically one can only model this kind of recursion using obscure constructs like hypersets.

But experientially they are not hard to appreciate, if one avoids being caught up in “naive realist” perspectives that hold there is some absolute reality bottoming out the hierarchy/heterarchy of relationships.

This brief article is part of the overall Cosmist Manifesto.


Ben Goertzel Ph.D. is a fellow of the IEET, and founder and CEO of two computer science firms Novamente and Biomind, and of the non-profit Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute (agiri.org).
Print Email permalink (2) Comments (3852) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


Perhaps it is not physics but metaphysics that holds the answer.

Shakespear gave a clue: to be or not to be, that is the question!

Make the ultimate substrate of existence the object of this question.

And try to answer the question.

There is no answer, it can’t be any answer to this question.

Perhaps from the logical indeterminacy of the ultimate cause, existence and non-existence arise and “co-exist”.

It is conceivable that this is the source of the 0s and 1s that make up the infinite dimensional multi/meta-verse, or, more simply put, the entirety of existence.





Ben,

You seem to be able to intuitively and immediately grasp obvious truths that many of the AI crowd like ‘Less Wrong’ seem cognitively blind to. 

Indeed, everything is ultimately just ‘the third’ (relationship/interface) or to be precise, symbolic representation.

Applying this to logic, is it not intuitively obvious that Bayesian Induction cannot fully capture intelligence, that the ‘Bayesian religion’ of the ‘Sing Inst/Less Wrong’ crowd is seriously misguided? 

Consider the ‘threeness’ you mentioned again and apply it to logic:

The 1st = Deductive Inference (e.g. Predicate)
The 2nd= Inductive Inference (e.g. Bayes)
The 3rd= Analogical Inference (e.g Categorization)

Note the 3rd here, analogical inference is what deals in logical representations - it is the fundamental ‘relational’ step, and therefore it MUST be more powerful than Induction (each level subsumes the one below). 

There is a certain sense in which this is indeed obvious.





YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Augmented (Fashion) Reality

Previous entry: Uncertain Spatiotemporal Logic for General Intelligence

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376