From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc Mon Dec  9 10:47:21 EST 1991
Article 1791 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Is everyday life formalizable?
Message-ID: <8ykacB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 91 19:50:42 GMT
Lines: 124

Perhaps there is such a thing as pure intellectual curiosity, but
I suspect that the bulk of our "philosophical" questions have
their origins in, and derive their motivational power from,
conscious or unconscious questions of a personal nature -- Freud
thought the prototype for all intellectual curiosity was the young
child's question: Where do babies (i.e., potential rivals) come
from?

I think that that is also true for questions of the
formalizability of knowledge.  My recent readings have convinced
me that the mappings of viewpoints onto fundamental motivations is
not simple in the case of AI (as it would seem to be in the case,
for example, of deriving the origins of Kant's categorical
imperative from the calvinistic doctrines his mother imparted to
him while he was sitting on her knee).  For some reason I
identified the "Platonic" position with formalism and
computability, i.e., with transcendental truths indubitably and
demonstrably _there_. Apparently that isn't the case and the
Platonic position holds that there are eternal truths which are
knowable by anamnesis but are not demonstrable (or computable or
formalizable -- there are nuances of meaning).  So I would have
identified the formalization point of view with intimations of
immortality based on the demonstrable nature of mind-like
properties inherent in the universe.  Apparently the reverse is
more nearly true and if the mind-like aspects are computable or
formalizable, that makes them machine-like and therefore
suggestive of atheism and the absence of an immortal soul.
Obviously it could go both ways, with people holding opposed views
for the same underlying motive and people agreeing with each other
on the basis of radically different depth motivations.

To me the issue, as far as I'm conscious of it, involved not the
formalization of Ultimate Truth but the formalization of the
problems of everyday life.  In spite of a virtually official
American ideology of "spontaneity" and "creativity," we sometimes
talk as if there were clear and obvious answers to the _major_
problems of living, that there is one correct solution and that
other actions are wrong for one reason or another.

This became an issue for me personally when I was 10 because we
had moved into a new neighborhood where, for a time, it seemed
that every boy wanted to take a turn at beating me up and I didn't
seem to be able to lick any of them.  My father suggested that the
only viable solution was to pick out the biggest one and "sail
into him" -- he never varied that phrase.  When I pointed out that
I couldn't lick any of them he said that I should still "get mad"
and "sail into him."  I questioned him about the possible outcomes
but he seemed to have two somewhat inconsistent theories, both of
which suggested the same solution.  Theory 1 was that if you got
mad enough you could win, even if the other guy was bigger and
tougher. Theory 2 was that if you fought back others would respect
you. This second theory itself seemed to be based on two somewhat
inconsistent subtheories, subtheory 1 being that you were bound to
do _some_ damage and therefore make the cost of picking on you too
high for the bully to want to pay, subtheory 2 being that the
other kids would be more likely to respect you if you did fight
back, even if you were unable to inflict any damage at all on the
opponent.

When I tried to argue to my father he shifted ground.  When I
pointed out that his subtheory 2 was probably wrong, that the
tough kids knew you couldn't really do them any harm and fighting
back merely legitimated their hitting you harder, he shifted to
one of the other theories.  When I pointed out that doing minimal
damage only made the bullies madder, he denied this and returned
to the other alternative, which he seemed to argue to be more
likely.

Naturally I began to wonder if his solution was indeed correct,
and had the characteristic of all correct solutions, as I
envisioned them at the time, of having only positive outcomes,
while the wrong solutions each led in its own way to a series of
undesirable outcomes.  (I still think that that unconscious belief
has operated for most people until very recently when political
leaders began talking about "managing" problems rather than
"solving" them and about the tradeoffs of various courses of
action.  This way of thinking is new.  It wasn't extant in the
40s.)

In my mind, when I was 10 year old, many of the issues which now
seem independent, were generally conflated.  I seem to have
thought that if there was a unique correct behavior it was easily
discoverable and was either algorithmic or catechismic.  (I
envisioned a book of Eternal Truths in the style of a catechism --
when I was 5 I had attended a Catholic Sunday School and memorized
part of that catechism in preparation for First Holy Communion --
and the hypothetical book contained all the correct things to do
under any conceivable situation.)

Naturally we grow more sophisticated in our thinking as we grow
older.  I now see a difference, although not a huge one, between a
truth that is revealed and a truth that is arrived at via an
explicit algorithm.  Both have certainly.  I now see a difference
between the question of whether a single best solution exists and
whether or not it is obvious or easy to find that solution.  But
my point is that my interest in AI stems from the fact that
finding the correct thing to do was problematized for me by those
boys who enjoyed beating me up and my father's insistence that I
get mad and sail into them.

Btw, I solved that problem by charming the boys and making friends
with them one at a time until I was "one of the boys."  I never
had particularly high status because they knew I couldn't actually
lick anybody, but it got to where it didn't matter that much.
Naturally at that point we moved and I was faced with the prospect
of doing it all over again, only this time we moved to an upper
middle class neighborhood where there were additional problems
which I won't go into here because my personal biography isn't
really that interesting.

The other interesting thing is that I now earn my living treating
boys who are, by everyone's opinion, _too_ aggressive.  Most of my
theorizing now is about the influences that lead to a stupid and
self-defeating aggressiveness, rather than what leads to excessive
timidity.  My point is that understanding _why_ we take the
positions we do on abstract topics, such as the formalizability of
mathematics, is not as difficult as is sometimes suggested and has
a real value for understanding ourselves.

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


