> At some point you will understand that you will never have absolute and complete axioms from which to build everything on [1], and you have to work with what you have.
To have hardware that displays blue, and code that manipulates blue, you must have a very clear and unambiguous definition of what blue means. Notice I did not say correct, only clear and unambiguous. Your whole point seems to be that words mean what a native speaker of the language understands them to mean, which is useful in linguistics and in the editing or dictionaries, but the context of this discussion is the representation of some concept in symbols that a computer can process, which is a different thing. Indeed, it's possible that the difference between code and 'vibes' will have to be in some way addressed by those very definitions of knowledge and intelligence, so I think these are relevant questions that can't be hand-waved away.
The code will function, in the sense of executing, whether the underlying concepts are sufficiently well-understood or not. Considering the ramifications of that statement might lead you to seeing why people want to understand what they're building before they build it.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were asking questions in good faith, but I'm not sure that's true anymore, so good luck.
Yes, but blue doesn't have a "Definitions of Blue" Wikipedia page.
There are nuances to definitions of common words "what is blue, what is a bicycle, what is a dollar, really?", but the magnitude of variance in definition is not shared with something like "knowledge" or "intelligence."
With these high-level concepts, most people are operating only on a "I know it when I see it" test (to reference the Supreme Court case on obscenity).
>Yes, but blue doesn't have a "Definitions of Blue" Wikipedia page.
Oh, I understand, so the criteria is to have a Wikipedia page like that?
You know what's interesting, I couldn't find neither of these:
* تعريفات المعرفة
* 知識嘅定義
* Définitions de la connaissance
* Definiciones de conocimiento
Should we add "and it has to be written in English" as a requirement?
I know this is arguing ad absurdum, but the point is, again, that if you choose to be that strict, you wouldn't even be able to communicate with other people, because your desired perfect 1:1 map of concepts among them doesn't even exist.
No, I mean to illustrate that "blue" and "knowledge" have a vastly different degree in variation in definition.
Like you say, all words of course have different definitions between individuals, but you and I are obviously able to communicate without specifying every definition. There exists a spectrum between well-agreed-upon definitions (like "and") and fuzzier ones. The definition of "knowledge" is divisive enough that many people disagree vehemently on definitions, which is illustrated by the fact that there is a whole Wikipedia article on it.
If there is a "midwit trap" related to this, there is certainly a Sorites paradox trap as well - that because all words have varying definitions, that it is no use to point out that some words' definitions are more variable than others.
I think they mean there many hues that some people will cal blue and other will disagree. And definitely if you try to buy paint and just say you want "blue" there's a huge spectrum of things you might get
