From: Doug Bailey (Doug.Bailey@ey.com)
Date: Fri Sep 25 1998 - 12:07:29 MDT
Doug Bailey wrote:
> > The Knowledge Question raises an interesting issue. Even
> > if Strong SIs existed, how would we properly recognize them
> > as Strong SIs? Since the knowledge they accessed that heralded
> > their ascension to Strong SI status is beyond our ability to
> > appreciate, how could we distinguish between a Strong SI and
> > a Weak SI that has lost its marbles?
Doug Bailey later wrote:
> > Another problem is differentiating between knowledge that is
> > forever beyond us and knowledge that is beyond us for now but
> > will be understandable after another 200 years of scientific
> > work.
Allen Smith responded:
> How about utilitarian grounds, aka the scientific method? If the
> ideas it generates work (as in it can say "do such and such to
> reach this goal"), then it's sane. If not, it's nuts. (I said
> "aka the scientific method" because this is essentially what the
> scientific method does to evaluate a theory.) -Allen
If the knowledge is by definition completely beyond us then it would
be completely beyond our heuristics to analyze as valid. It would be
impossible to prove valid but it might seem invalid when applying
the scientific method (SM). It should be extremely difficult to distinguish
between Strong SI knowledge and bunk. Both will not be able to be
proved valid by the SM and both will probably be considered patently
invalid when analyzing it with the SM. I anticipate some may say we
might be able to sense some validity due to mathematical beauty,
consistency or some other trait of Strong SI knowledge. But I doubt
this will be the case because Strong SI knowledge will be so completely
alien to us that such characteristics will not emerge from our analysis.
If we are able to sense some trace of validity then odds are such
knowledge is not Strong SI knowledge but instead knowledge forged by
a Weak SI. For example, a Weak SI in 1700 might have come up with
M-Theory. M-Theory might look like complete nonsense to an 18th century
mathematician or physicist but odds are they might be able to discern
some validity hidden in all the mathematical arcana. It might look like
Strong SI knowledge but it isn't.
Doug Bailey
doug.bailey@ey.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:36 MST