Why To Be Excessive Inferiority --- 2

 

   

The article also quoted Lin Yutang's words, saying that 

the lack of developed natural science in China is due to 

the thinking characteristics of Chinese people.

Lin Yutang said: 

"In Chinese literature, there has never been an eloquent

argument. 

Chinese writers first put forward one or two arguments, 

and then immediately put forward a conclusion.

When reading his articles, you rarely see how he came to

this conclusion."

 

He also said that of all the ancient philosophers in the 

Zhou Dynasty, only Mozi and Han Feizi had styles close

to the powerful argumentation style. 

Mencius was undoubtedly a great sophist, but he was 

only interested in such big and broad words as "benefit"

and "righteousness".

Other philosophers , such as Zhuangzi, Liezi and 

Huainanzi, were only interested in beautiful metaphors. 

Hui Shi, Mozi's disciples, and Gong Sunlong were great

sophists. 

Chinese philosophers especially like to use the method

of analogical reasoning to demonstrate , such as Mencius,

Xunzi and Zhuangzi. 

The use of metaphor, fable and other techniques is

analogical reasoning, and the results of analogical

reasoning are uncertain, which can not prove any 

point of view.

 

Therefore, Mencius, the most eloquent man in the 

Chinese mind, is actually the most unreasonable. 

His argument is not speculative, but sophistic.

However, earlier philosophers did not argue at all, but

directly expressed their views and believed that they 

were right.

For example, the words of Laozi and Confucius are the

same. Lao Tzu said:

 "Tao (The law from nature) can be explained , but it 

may change .” 

Why? They rarely prove their views and rarely think 

about "why".

 

In this way, all of our ancestors were regarded as 

nothing by him !

 

Is it true? No !

Please think about it again:

1.   There are indeed many ideas in our culture that can 

only be understood and difficult to say clearly . But 

these ideas are often the essence of culture.

However, the understanding of these ideas often 

requires some perceptions.

In fact, such perceptions have never been too difficult 

to communicate among persons.

But once it is used in human-computer conversation, 

it is difficult for machines to understand these ideas.

However, it is not human's fault, but because the 

development of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is still a little 

poor , we must not blame our culture for this.

 

2.   It should be recognized that our ancestors were 

really interested in discussing such abstract concepts as

"benefit", "righteousness", "benevolence" and "Tao",

because these issues are of great importance; 

On the other hand, our ancestors did classify the logical

reasoning of specific problems as "skills" , and believed 

that these "skills" were a low-level skill so that almost

everyone could deduce by himself without any excessive

nagging.

Of course, it may be a problem, but not a serious problem,

nor a problem of principle.

Therefore, this question is not enough to completely deny

the philosophy of our ancestors, or even say that our 

ancestors do not understand logical thinking or reasoning!

What's more, all human beings have ways to discuss 

problems such as analogy, fable, and even sophistry.

All of these are a relatively advanced logical way of 

thinking, and naturally belong to the treasure house of

human wisdom.

We cannot arbitrarily take it for granted that only 

logical reasoning that is understood by machines is 

real logical reasoning!

That would be too foolish !

 

In fact, from the development history of AI, logical 

reasoning on specific problems is very simple. 

Almost all logical reasoning can be done by robots, 

while fables, analogies, sophistry, humor, etc. are higher

thinking activities, which are difficult for robots to 

complete satisfactorily. 

All these are exactly what the future AI should solve.

Unless someone is willing to let AI stay at the low level 

for ever and he himself also likes to remain at a low IQ 

level for ever .

Therefore, similar questioning is essentially anti-intellectual

behavior!

 

he took it for granted that only a simple way of thinking

was desirable.

 

If so,  AI can only stay in the low IQ stage .

------------ Written in  2022