Merged Artificial Intelligence

[Chanakya]

...as for how AI actually works, there really isn't a whole lot of mystery about that. I am no expert, but give me a specific example of something you think of as AI, and I can probably give you some idea of how it works.

Well, maybe you could weigh in on this discussion about whether present-day AI is capable of thinking critically, and of creative ideation. (As opposed to simply parody. And whether there's a difference.)

We're all talking about it. But knowing about the how of the thing actually runs would certainly make a big difference. @JayUtah, and some others as well, are already bringing in that understanding; but then there's some others, certainly including me, who are simply talking about our impression of it without knowing how it works. ...If you could weigh in as well, from a position of understanding the mechanics of it, on either side of discussion depending on what your take is, then that would be cool.

For instance: This is one thing that came up in the discussion here so far: When AI critiques some matter that is outside of its training material, then it falls back on logic and suchlike that it's seen in its training, and using that it critiques even such subjects as it has never come across ever. My own take is that that is just going through the motions, just a parody not the real thing. Do you agree?

Even if I'm right, and you agree, even so: I mean, that's what's happening to all of AI, isn't it? When it's producing a visual of people, then it isn't out trying to sketch people, it is, equally, "just going through the motions" --- and yet it does it so very well. Initially it messed up the fingers, but now it's stopped doing even that. ...So, might just "going through the motions" of critical thinking let it nevertheless produce such a good parody that no one can tell the difference, even for material it's never seen?

If you could talk about how exactly the fingers thing was improved, the mechanism of how they fixed that particular bug, then maybe that might throw light on whether something similar can be done, maybe already is being done, to how it treats critical thinking.

(That came out a bit garbled, I see that, but maybe I've got my meaning across? ...If not, even so it would be cool if you could just weigh in however you want on this question of whether present-day AI is capable of these two things, critical thinking, and creative ideation.)

 

[JayUtah]

Was he using AI to compose his posts?

I don't think so. I think he was using AI to convince himself he was genuinely onto something and winning a debate.

Yes, badly. But, importantly, it's just a parody, is all. Is my take on it. ...Do you agree? (I want to make sure I'm not making an error myself with how I'm viewing this.) ...It isn't just "badly" critiqued, the fact is that the apparent critique is no more than parody. ...See further:

I don't agree that LLMs offer serious critical analysis. But I don't agree with calling it a parody. "Parody" implies a conscious intent to caricature, belittle, or denigrate. I think LLMs are simply bad a critical analysis. That's a consequence of its technical limitations.

So like, sure, it's following the logical-engagement, critical-thinking-engagement thing it's seen in its training: but it's simply ...well, going through the motions.

That's literally every LLM ever, on every subject. There is no deeper cognition within an LLM on any application. It's literally just high-order tensor math.

That's kind of what's happening in everything, isn't it, not just critical thinking.

Correct.

But I'm also asking, in addition, if "just going through the motions" is sufficient to get it to nevertheless improve on the output to where it is difficult to tell the difference, like in many cases it already is.

People thought ELIZA was a deep-thinking analyst. It was literally just automated copypasting. People today have meaningful discussions with LLMs as if they were talking to a fellow human. We don't have to wait for it to improve. The illusion has been here for decades. It has little if anything to do with the underlying technology and more to do with human desire for interaction.

 

[Chanakya]

I don't think so. I think he was using AI to convince himself he was genuinely onto something and winning a debate.


I don't agree that LLMs offer serious critical analysis. But I don't agree with calling it a parody. "Parody" implies a conscious intent to caricature, belittle, or denigrate. I think LLMs are simply bad a critical analysis. That's a consequence of its technical limitations.


That's literally every LLM ever, on every subject. There is no deeper cognition within an LLM on any application. It's literally just high-order tensor math.


Correct.


People thought ELIZA was a deep-thinking analyst. It was literally just automated copypasting. People today have meaningful discusses with LLMs as if they were talking to a fellow human. We don't have to wait for it to improve. The illusion has been here for decades. It has little if anything to do with the underlying technology and more to do with human desire for interaction.

Thanks for that.

Agreed, "parody" carries the idea of denigrating, of mocking: I mean it only in the sense of going through the motions of something: but then, on the other hand, like you say that applies to everything AI does.

And overall, this tells me I'm on the right track, that I haven't ended up getting the wrong idea of where we're at it with AI and critical thinking, even while imagining I know what's what.

This ...isn't critical thinking, not yet. And we'd be fools to imagine it is, and to engage with it as if it is, like many --- too many! --- actually do IRL.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Well, maybe you could weigh in on this discussion about whether present-day AI is capable of thinking critically, and of creative ideation. (As opposed to simply parody. And whether there's a difference.)

It is a mistake to talk as though "thinking critically" really means something.

AI is certainly capable of discovering new mathematical theorems, new proofs of old theorems, new strategies for chess and Go, chemical structures for new drugs, and so on. AI has done all of those things.

If a human had done those things, we'd say the human was thinking. Because computers did those things, we don't want to say the computer was thinking. The conflict between those sentences is resolved when you admit the word "thinking" is not well-defined, but a lot of people don't like to admit that. Which goes a long way to explain the length of this thread.

We're all talking about it. But knowing about the how of the thing actually runs would certainly make a big difference. @JayUtah, and some others as well, are already bringing in that understanding; but then there's some others, certainly including me, who are simply talking about our impression of it without knowing how it works. ...If you could weigh in as well, from a position of understanding the mechanics of it, on either side of discussion depending on what your take is, then that would be cool.

@JayUtah says "high-order tensor math". That's part of it. I prefer to speak of metric spaces, not necessarily Euclidean, of very high dimensions. That's the big data part of it, and it's the reason SIMD vector processing chips (for example) are said to be "AI chips"; the so-called AI chips include other kinds of chips as well.

Before I spend more time on this, you might tell us what you know about normed metric spaces of arbitrary dimension, and whether you know what a tensor is.

For instance: This is one thing that came up in the discussion here so far: When AI critiques some matter that is outside of its training material, then it falls back on logic and suchlike that it's seen in its training, and using that it critiques even such subjects as it has never come across ever. My own take is that that is just going through the motions, just a parody not the real thing. Do you agree?

I do not agree, but the main reason I do not agree is that I do not agree the "real thing" you're talking about is a real thing.

Even if I'm right, and you agree, even so: I mean, that's what's happening to all of AI, isn't it? When it's producing a visual of people, then it isn't out trying to sketch people, it is, equally, "just going through the motions" --- and yet it does it so very well. Initially it messed up the fingers, but now it's stopped doing even that. ...So, might just "going through the motions" of critical thinking let it nevertheless produce such a good parody that no one can tell the difference, even for material it's never seen?

I think you're mainly talking about LLMs and computer graphics. What LLMs do is what a mediocre movie about Alan Turing referred to as "The Imitation Game". People can argue about how well LLMs are imitating "critical thinking" or "the real thing", but I regard those arguments as pointless when we don't have any genuine understanding of what we might mean by "critical thinking" or "the real thing".

(That came out a bit garbled, I see that, but maybe I've got my meaning across? ...If not, even so it would be cool if you could just weigh in however you want on this question of whether present-day AI is capable of these two things, critical thinking, and creative ideation.)

My opinion is pretty simple: It's hard to be capable of anything so poorly defined as "critical thinking" and "creative ideation".

 

[Chanakya]

It is a mistake to talk as though "thinking critically" really means something.

AI is certainly capable of discovering new mathematical theorems, new proofs of old theorems, new strategies for chess and Go, chemical structures for new drugs, and so on. AI has done all of those things.

If a human had done those things, we'd say the human was thinking. Because computers did those things, we don't want to say the computer was thinking. The conflict between those sentences is resolved when you admit the word "thinking" is not well-defined, but a lot of people don't like to admit that. Which goes a long way to explain the length of this thread.


@JayUtah says "high-order tensor math". That's part of it. I prefer to speak of metric spaces, not necessarily Euclidean, of very high dimensions. That's the big data part of it, and it's the reason SIMD vector processing chips (for example) are said to be "AI chips"; the so-called AI chips include other kinds of chips as well.

Before I spend more time on this, you might tell us what you know about normed metric spaces of arbitrary dimension, and whether you know what a tensor is.


I do not agree, but the main reason I do not agree is that I do not agree the "real thing" you're talking about is a real thing.


I think you're mainly talking about LLMs and computer graphics. What LLMs do is what a mediocre movie about Alan Turing referred to as "The Imitation Game". People can argue about how well LLMs are imitating "critical thinking" or "the real thing", but I regard those arguments as pointless when we don't have any genuine understanding of what we might mean by "critical thinking" or "the real thing".

Ah. You clearly think differently.

Eh, I don't know. I mean the part where you say thinking is not a thing. I kind of think it's crucial, that difference. (But I'm happy to change my mind if I find I'm wrong --- that, always.)

Here's a for-instance: @Jay talks about someone (who's using AI to help them with the discussion, so essentially reflecting AI) insisting on citations despite directly referencing an authority. ...Now someone may contest that the authority is indeed an authority; or, alternately, someone may themselves be so well versed as to be able to contest the views even of an authority: but neither of these is what is happening here, what's happening here is that the guy, channeling AI, is simply asking for citations because it's seen that that's what's usually done, without understanding why exactly the citation is needed, and so not understanding why it might sometimes not be needed.

In other words, this is a case of just going through the motions of critical thinking, as opposed to actual critical thinking.

Now we needn't dissect whether this poster in that thread that was referenced is right or wrong. But what I just outlined above, does show, doesn't it, an example of how thinking is really a thing? How going through the motions of thinking is different from thinking, and how the former cannot measure up to the latter, even if the output sometimes might apparently be similar?

----------

Those things you asked me? Afraid I know none of that! I've heard of tensors, but can't say I actually know what those are. Nor do I have any idea of what "metric spaces of arbitrary dimensions" are, sorry!

----------

My opinion is pretty simple: It's hard to be capable of anything so poorly defined as "critical thinking" and "creative ideation".

Defining it per se might be difficult, but we might just give examples of it maybe? Here's what I at any rate mean when I say creative ideation: The ability to produce Roko's Basilisk off of one's own steam in world where such hasn't been thought up. Or the ability to think up Pascal's Wager from scratch. The ability to think up a heliocentric system in a world where no one's done that before. The ability to think up warped space time gravity in a world where only Newtonian gravity is known about. Like that.

And critical thinking? Well, in a world where nothing like Roko's Basilisk (or Pascal's Wager, or a heliocentric system of planetary motion, or Einsteinian gravity) has ever been thought up, if you happened to come across such a construct for the very first time, then how would you go about critiquing it? That critique, how you would do it, examining those ideas squarely, would be critical thinking. ...And AI? It will simply go through the motions of critical thinking. Which might work very well indeed when it's dealing with material already covered in its training material. But when it tries do this going through the motions thing with things it sees for the very first time, then ...I guess the difference will then be evident.


(At least those are my thoughts on this. I think there's a clear difference between the real thing, and simply going through the motions. ...But again, happy to change my mind if it turns out I'm wrong after all.)

 

[JayUtah]

In other words, this is a case of just going through the motions of critical thinking, as opposed to actual critical thinking.

What I gather @W.D.Clinger is trying to tell you is that what is or isn't "real" critical thinking comes down to bias. Because critical thinking as we've used the term in the forum before came first from organic brains, it's very attractive to consider that some sort of axiomatic baseline. No, LLMs do not work the same way as organic brains. But if you want to go that route, the complicated math that makes AIs work has its analogue in organic brains. We can take a similarly reductionist approach and say that the self-organizing electrochemical activity in the brain is just "going through the motions." We see plenty of organic people in this forum getting critical thinking wrong too.

When you put both paradigms on a more even playing field and you relax the assumption that organic intelligence is automatically the right kind, it's hard to see the distinctions you're insisting upon as bright lines.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Now we needn't dissect whether this poster in that thread that was referenced is right or wrong. But what I just outlined above, does show, doesn't it, an example of how thinking is really a thing? How going through the motions of thinking is different from thinking, and how the former cannot measure up to the latter, even if the output sometimes might apparently be similar?

Well, that's what you think. Or what you think you think. Or what you do when you go through the motions of thinking you think you think. Something like that.

When I was much younger, I occasionally went through the motions of swinging a bat at a ball. Every once in a while, I hit the ball. At the time, I could watch on television as Willy Mays and Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron went through the motions of swinging a bat at a ball. Every once in a while, they hit the ball. They hit the ball more often (ETA: and much farther!) than I did, and that's impressive because the pitches they swung at were orders of magnitude more difficult to hit than the pitches I swung at. But we were all just going through the motions. Some of us were much better at it than others, but that doesn't change the fact that we were all going through the motions.

I think thinking is like that. We all go through the motions of thinking. Some of us go through those motions much better than others.

And critical thinking? Well, in a world where nothing like Roko's Basilisk (or Pascal's Wager, or a heliocentric system of planetary motion, or Einsteinian gravity) has ever been thought up, if you happened to come across such a construct for the very first time, then how would you go about critiquing it?

Well, I don't remember hearing about Roko's Basilisk before this thread, and I don't remember when I first heard about Pascal's Wager. I heard of Einstein's theories of relativity when I was a young child, but mostly what I heard was E = mc² and the atomic bomb. In one of my earliest conversations with someone who actually understood Einstein's theories of relativity, I thought he was talking about curved space. I asked how anyone could know which direction was up. He replied, and I quote, "Up yours." Then he apologized and said it was actually a good question. It was another year or two before Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler came out with Gravitation, and I had a hard time reading that book. I found it much easier to read The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, by Hawking and Ellis, mainly because that book was written for mathematically proficient readers instead of being dumbed down for physics undergrads. As for how I would go about critiquing that book, let's just say that, over the course of many years, I found two or three very minor errors in the book.

It is important to note, however, that I made a genuine effort to understand what the book said, and did not presume to criticize the parts I did not yet understand.

Roko's Basilisk is basically an idea for a science fiction short story. It was, in fact, similar to a short story that had been written 20 years earlier. The founder of the online forum at which Roko presented his idea critiqued Roko's idea by calling Roko an idiot. I wouldn't call Roko an idiot, but I would most definitely go about critiquing an idea for a short story quite differently than I went about critiquing Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

And Pascal's Wager has a lot more in common with Roko's idea for a short story than it does with Einstein's theories of relativity. With Einstein, we can ask how well the theory withstands empirical and experimental tests. There are no such tests for Pascal's Wager or Roko's Basilisk.

Instead of telling you how I would go about critiquing those things, I have told how I did go about critiquing those things. As noted below, I doubt whether my answer will help you to understand artificial intelligence.

That critique, how you would do it, examining those ideas squarely, would be critical thinking. ...And AI? It will simply go through the motions of critical thinking. Which might work very well indeed when it's dealing with material already covered in its training material. But when it tries do this going through the motions thing with things it sees for the very first time, then ...I guess the difference will then be evident.

I am fairly sure that existing LLMs can critique Roko's Basilisk and Pascal's Wager as intelligently as I can, and I would not be terribly surprised if some extant LLMs can tell you more than I can about the empirical/experimental support for and open questions about Einstein's theories of relativity. You might reply that my ability to critique Roko and Pascal is substandard, possibly even subhuman, and I would agree with you there, but I would suggest to you that my critique of Einstein's theories would not be greatly inferior to what you might get from the average man on the street or half of the philosophy department at your local university.

You might notice that the paragraphs I wrote above are critiquing your ideas in much the same way I'd critique Roko's, or Pascal's, or Einstein's.

Those things you asked me? Afraid I know none of that! I've heard of tensors, but can't say I actually know what those are. Nor do I have any idea of what "metric spaces of arbitrary dimensions" are, sorry!

That is not entirely unexpected. I have outlined a five- or ten-minute explanation of what they have to do with AI that might be appropriate for you, but that will take me a while to write up, and this post is already pretty long, so I'll save that for another day.

 

[alfaniner]

I found this video quite disturbing in its implications. (Chinese kung fu acrobat robots -- no ad in this video, at least for me. But I didn't like the text covering up some of the scenes.) At first I thought it must be an AI video, or even live motion-capture, but several difference sources peg it as genuine.
They are so accurate and so fast, it scares me to think what can (will!) be done with the likes of them.

 

[arthwollipot]

Pet peeve. They're not doing kung fu, they're doing Chinese Opera. Which is admirable enough, but I wish people would stop calling it martial arts. It's dance.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Yeah .. you are safe .. as long as there is no music playing.

 

[Chanakya]

Well, that's what you think. Or what you think you think. Or what you do when you go through the motions of thinking you think you think. Something like that.

When I was much younger, I occasionally went through the motions of swinging a bat at a ball. Every once in a while, I hit the ball. At the time, I could watch on television as Willy Mays and Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron went through the motions of swinging a bat at a ball. Every once in a while, they hit the ball. They hit the ball more often (ETA: and much farther!) than I did, and that's impressive because the pitches they swung at were orders of magnitude more difficult to hit than the pitches I swung at. But we were all just going through the motions. Some of us were much better at it than others, but that doesn't change the fact that we were all going through the motions.

I think thinking is like that. We all go through the motions of thinking. Some of us go through those motions much better than others.

Sorry, but no!! ...When it comes to how AI works, and the math and programming that goes into it, I readily admit that what little I've picked up from popular sources cannot stand up to actually educated and informed opinion: but as far as this section, we're not talking about AI, but simply about critical thinking. And I find myself disagreeing completely. (But again, happy to change my mind if you can argue otherwise, even as far as this. On the other hand, I hope you come prepared to do the same, if I can show you otherwise.)

You're essentially saying here that there's no such fundamental thing as critical thinking, and that there is no essential difference between critical thinking itself on one hand, and of going through the motions of such. And I find such an opinion to be completely mistaken! And I propose to show you that you are mistaken by using three examples:


One: Your own example: Someone picking up baseball by watching star players on TV. Now I'm not saying you can't pick the fundamentals of a sport from TV or the internet, you can: but you can do that if you carefully observe and absorb the rules of the game, of the technique involved, and of how those techniques go towards enabling you to follow the rules of the game to arrive at a win. That's critical thinking, whether picked up formally or informally, and whether done well or badly. ...Or you could just see these guys wear certain kinds of clothing, put on certain expressions and gestures, move a bat in a certain way, and boom, the stadium erupts in rapturous cheering, a win! And you could follow all of that without understanding exactly why you're doing that. And that would be "going through the motions", as opposed to actually playing --- and it is counterfeit even if by happenstance you end up going through the motions to somehow actually score a win.

Makes sense? ...Even if it doesn't, even if you don't find yourself agreeing, please don't immediately jump to reacting with a response, not until you've first read out my two other examples as well!


Two: Maybe you're aware of that Polynesian island thing, that I myself first came across in Dawkins' book, what's the place called, Vanatu? ...something like that. ...So, these guys, living and devoloping in isolation and cut off from civilization completely, suddenly during WW2 ([eta] Or what is WW1? I forget. Well, either way [/eta]) the UK sets up an air base there and use it primarily to keep and move around cargo, something like that. ...So, these guys see these people step out, put on certain kinds of clothing, and go out to a cleared field of a certain length, a field on which they've put certain kinds of markings, and then they bark out these particular spells (as it appears to them), and move around their arms in certain stylized ways: and boom, out from the sky drops this huge plane, and from that plane emerges this whole bunch of all kinds of goodies. And this keeps happening every time these guys go wave around their arms there. ...So, when the war's over and these guys leave, these guys in the island, they build up a whole religion around dressing up and making marks on a field and waving their arms around, imagining that doing that will result in goodies arriving from the sky in planes.

That's as stark an example as you can find, that clearly lays out the difference between actual critical thinking, and "going through the motions" of critical thinking.

In fact, yeah, rather than just calling it "going through the motions" of critical thinking as I have, or calling it "parody" of critical thinking (which carries with it hints of deliberate denigration and mockery, which obviously doesn't fit), I think this word, this term, this descriptor, works better: cargo cult critical thinking.

You're suggesting here that thinking per se is not a thing at all, so that either there is no difference between the processes of actual critical thinking and cargo cult critical thinking or that that difference does not matter, and that the only significant relevant difference is in the outcome of the process and not the process itself. And I find myself disagreeing completely. I think the process itself makes all the difference, even if it so happens that sometimes cargo cult critical thinking ends up arriving at results that you cannot tell apart from the real thing.


Third and last example: The specific actual instance I already described to you, in my earlier post to you. This guy (and his AI, that he's using to inform his discussion) has seen that in rational skeptical discourse, it is the done thing to insist on citations, and to reject arguments if citations aren't produced. He's seen that following this MO in discussions leads to "wins". So he/it follows this strategy with confidence. But he's just going through the motions, and so doesn't realize just why those citations are being asked for, and why, when facing an actual authority, citations may be unnecessary. Essentially, what he's doing is employing cargo cult critical thinking, as opposed to actual critical thinking. He's just mindlessly aping the techniques of critical thinking, without appreciating just why. And that might serve him when he's treading well-trodden ground that he's internalized: but will necessarily mean he comes up short when faced with something he hasn't encountered before.

(Now let's please not get mired in disagreement over incidentals. In this case you may legitimately question the authority of the putative authority figure, and insist on credentials being presented: but that isn't what's happening here. You may yourself bring your own bona fide technical expertise to contest the views of the authority figure on equal terms, that happens in science all the time: but that isn't what's happening here either: what's happening here, in this instance, is just a guy, using AI, mindlessly insisting on citations, and insisting he wins if there's no citation. Or you may even maybe argue a case why a citation may be desirable from even an authority figure: and, while I would disagree, but hell, if you made a good enough case then I might concede you're right even on that. ...But these are all incidentals. ...My point is, you're saying there's no difference between actual critical thinking and cargo cult critical thinking. And I find myself disagreeing, and I'm trying to show you why your view is completely wrong, and why the process matters, and not just the end result.)


----------

Sorry, @W.D.Clinger , that ended up much longer than I'd meant it! ...But I think this is an important point, and unless we settle this basic disagreement first then there's no sense in going any further.

Because this post has already ended up this huge, I'll just skip responding to the rest of your post for now, if I may. For now, and just in the interest of brevity and focus, is all.

Let's settle this disagreement first, then I'll revisit the rest of your post. That will also involve yet another disagreement: your contention that creative ideation is too fuzzy to be seen as a thing (which I contested, while agreeing that defining it might be difficult, by presenting you with specific examples). ...And finally the main course, as it were, which is your discussion of how AI actually works---that I'm completely looking forward to reading, and learning from!

(I've been thinking of starting a new thread focused on this question specifically of whether present-day AI is capable of critical thinking and creative ideation. I think it's time I did that, else we/I might end up derailing this thread. Haven't the time just now, so I'll just leave this post be for now, but I'll go start a fresh thread later when I've time. I'll carry over your response to this post to that thread, if you've posted that already by the time I start this new thread, and we can pick up the discussion there, if that's okay with you.)

 

[Chanakya]

What I gather @W.D.Clinger is trying to tell you is that what is or isn't "real" critical thinking comes down to bias. Because critical thinking as we've used the term in the forum before came first from organic brains, it's very attractive to consider that some sort of axiomatic baseline. No, LLMs do not work the same way as organic brains. But if you want to go that route, the complicated math that makes AIs work has its analogue in organic brains. We can take a similarly reductionist approach and say that the self-organizing electrochemical activity in the brain is just "going through the motions." We see plenty of organic people in this forum getting critical thinking wrong too.

When you put both paradigms on a more even playing field and you relax the assumption that organic intelligence is automatically the right kind, it's hard to see the distinctions you're insisting upon as bright lines.

No, I've no hangups about silicon "brains", consciousness, intelligence, call it what you will. I'm nowhere suggesting, nor do I at all think, that us biologically based types necessarily have some kind of monopoly on critical thinking. In fact, that's one part of what what I'm asking, and what I'd thought we'd arrived at agreement about, you and I --- about whether present-day AI is able to think critically. (The other part was to do with creative ideation.)

See my post to @W.D.Clinger above. ...Do you agree with what I've tried to argue there? And, importantly, do you then disagree with him on the specific point that I've disagreed with him over? (Just trying to arrive at the right views, is all. Happy to change my mind if it turns out I'm wrong! ...Just, on this basic thing, I don't think he's right --- but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.)



eta:

We see plenty of organic people in this forum getting critical thinking wrong too.

Haha, yes! Us humans very often get it all wrong, the thinking of us humans very often does end up in cargo cult critical thinking category. And that's something we should always watch out for, in our own thinking, agreed! ...But, thing is, critical thinking is something we can do, some humans if not all humans, at some times if not at all times. Can AI do similar, is the question.

(Of course, to suggest that there's no such thing as critical thinking at all, in the process of it as opposed to just the output of it; and to suggest that there's no relevant difference between actual critical thinking and cargo cult critical thinking? That, I think, is completely wrong, that basic part, that foundational starting point of his argument.)

 

[JayUtah]

Do you agree with what I've tried to argue there?

I don't agree with your opening, which was to say that @W.D.Clinger is saying there's no such thing as critical thinking. I don't think that's what he's claiming. As for the rest of your post, it seems to follow at length from a flawed premise, so fix that first.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I don't agree with your opening, which was to say that @W.D.Clinger is saying there's no such thing as critical thinking. I don't think that's what he's claiming. As for the rest of your post, it seems to follow at length from a flawed premise, so fix that first.

But that is indeed what he's claiming.

It is a mistake to talk as though "thinking critically" really means something...

My opinion is pretty simple: It's hard to be capable of anything so poorly defined as "critical thinking" and "creative ideation".

 

[Chanakya]

I don't agree with your opening, which was to say that @W.D.Clinger is saying there's no such thing as critical thinking. I don't think that's what he's claiming. As for the rest of your post, it seems to follow at length from a flawed premise, so fix that first.

Oh. I don't know, his meaning seemed very clear there, in the part I've quoted. And I don't see why organic brains vis-a-vis non-biological silicon brains would come into the discussion at that point, at all.

But okay, we'll see what @W.D.Clinger has to say. If he says I'm mistaken in so parsing his post, then sure, I'll "fix" that, as you say, absolutely!

 

[JayUtah]

But that is indeed what he's claiming.

If you read what he actually says, he’s saying it’s poorly defined. When we say the words, different people apprehend different things. Saying that something is hard to put a finger on isn’t the same as saying there’s no such thing as it.

 

[JayUtah]

But okay, we'll see what @W.D.Clinger has to say. If he says I'm mistaken in so parsing his post, then sure, I'll "fix" that, as you say, absolutely!

Exactly. Don't play your interlocutors off each other. It's rude.

 

[Chanakya]

Exactly. Don't play your interlocutors off each other. It's rude.

What?!! I mean, wtaf?!

That hadn't been my intention, at all. I reread my posts, and don't see why you would think that, sorry.

I've no idea why this is getting personal. No offense meant, to either you or to @W.D.Clinger ! ...And nor is there any question of playing anyone off against anyone, I abhor games of that kind, and frankly am not comfortable with your implying---saying outright--- that I'm doing that. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You're both very well read, well informed people. Both generally, as well as on this specific subject. Reason I invited your view was because I sincerely welcome the opportunity to examine and learn your views, and his, and because you both entered into this yourselves, because you were explaining his meaning to me, and and because I ...well, ...

Gawd. How'd we arrive at ...this, this weird personalization thing? No offense, man, but the only thing "rude" here is what you're reading into my posts. That's all you, not me at all.

 

[JayUtah]

Gawd. How'd we arrive at ...this, this personalization thing?

We arrived at it when you took issue with my attempt to reconcile what I had suggested with some of the things that @W.D.Clinger had suggested—which I found to be well reasoned—and accused me of backtracking on some sort of tacit agreement with you. You wrote a wall of text to him. Fine, I write lengthy posts too. But then you called me out to take sides on it before he had a chance to address (and perhaps, to correct) it. That's what I mean about playing your interlocutors off one another.

Slow down. Calm down. We'll all be happier for it.

 

[Chanakya]

We arrived at it when you took issue with my attempt to reconcile what I had suggested

Which reconciliation I thought was incorrect, I responded to WDClinger's clearly stated views. Your interpretation is whats mistaken here. ...But still, his very clear words notwithstanding, I'm fully prepared to correct my understanding of his words if he says so, I said that as well.

with some of the things that @W.D.Clinger had suggested—which I found to be well reasoned

And I clearly quoted from his post, and clearly explained what parts of it I disagreed with and why. Both my post, and the portion his post that I quoted from, and the rest of his post as well, are there still, in plain view.

I really don't know why you're getting all personal and weird over this. This is ...just weird.

—and accused me of backtracking on some sort of tacit agreement with you.

Not accused you of backtracking. Cross-checked with you.

Weird that you should directly imagine it was the former, given I've given zero grounds for you to think along those lines.

This isn't an effing contest to decide who's top dog here. This is just a discussion that we're in in order to further our own understanding. And at least that's the discussion I am in.

You wrote a wall of text to him. Fine, I write lengthy posts too.

As you say. Why bring the length of my post into this? Gawd, don't you see how completely unnecessarily weird you're making this, all on your own, with zero provocation, with zero reason?

But then you called me out to take sides on it before he had a chance to address (and perhaps, to correct) it.

It was clear to me what he meant. You yourself stepped in to interpret his words to me, that we quite clear to me. And I reacted positively to your stepping in, sure.

I don't see why you keep on looking at this as "taking sides". ...Look, man, I truly respect your intellect and erudition and the time and effort you take to help make this forum such a lovely place with your very informative, very knowledgeable discussions: but please reread these last few posts, you'll find that the only one being weird and rude here is you.

That's what I mean about playing your interlocutors off one another.

That's all you, not me, that interpretation you jump on.

Slow down. Calm down. We'll all be happier for it.

Stop being unnecessarily rude. Stop doubling down on the indefensible. That is what we'll all be happier for.