AI is a Copy!!

[Grey Cloud]

8 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

The beauty of science is that it's always open minded. If someone comes along with a better theory, the outdated one gets thrown out of the window, no hard feelings

You jest.

Tell that to Alfred Wegener. Or, in a more contemporary context, what about all the 'the debate is over' morons on climate change and AGW?

Kuhn and several others have written about the resistance to change in science.

[Jazzman]

7 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Would you care to elaborate?

What different leagues?

What can I not grasp?

What agricultural age of farmers and pastoralists am I stuck in?

Why is the ancient view primitive?

What is this best 'contemporary way'?

How do you know I know little? Hearsay from who?

 

As I've already stated above. I've studied and lived philosophy for 20 years. I've read Homer, Parmenides, Plato, Patanjali, Lao, Chuang, the Upanishads, various Sufi texts, more Christian literature than a cathedral full of Christians, lots of Jewish literature including the major Kabbalistic texts, hundreds of alchemy texts, mythology from around the world and much more.

Guess you've studied philosophy based on a prefab, questionable axiom which automatically leads to a correctly defined house of cards built on the quicksand of time for otherwise you could have dozily followed my simple remarks... without feeling your faith as being under threat. Look, for me it is totally irrelevant in what the one or another believes in, what comforts them most in their regional environment. I'm interested in the original meaning of terms, metaphors, personifications and miracles created to spread a partisan message as facilitator between deities and man. So don't be afraid...

 

Now, would man ever grant a soul to robots he creates in his image? Well, acc. to an apocryphal Einstein quote, two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity; and he wasn't sure about the universe (quite correctly). So I fear man will do exactly that, even if it is just to feel a bit more divine as he already claims to be in this world.

 

 

 

 

[Grey Cloud]

12 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Guess you've studied philosophy based on a prefab, questionable axiom which automatically leads to a correctly defined house of cards on the quicksand of time for otherwise you could have dozily followed my simple remarks... without feeling your faith as being under threat. Look, for me it is totally irrelevant in what the one or another believes in, what comforts them most in their regional environment. I'm interested in the original meaning of terms, metaphors, personifications and miracles created to spread a partisan message as facilitator between deities and man. So don't be afraid...

 

 

 

 

So that would be 'no I can't elaborate' then?

 

"I'm interested in the original meaning of terms, metaphors, personifications and miracles created to spread a partisan message as facilitator between deities and man".

Well then I would be very interested to hear your take on the Jesus narrative or that of Achilles in Iliad or Odysseus in Odyssey. Or Pinocchio come to that (a personal favourite). So don't be afraid, stop writing gibberish and share with us your deep and insightful findings.

 

[GrimReaper]

7 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Your analogies are not good. There is a place (and time) where a computer 'generates' a 'frame'. The thing about antidepressants is just childish.

 

What was different about Mozart's brain? Mozrt not only 'processed sound related information' he also wrote it. And what he wrote originated in his head - he was the author of the music.

 

'Spooky', at least where I live, is a child's word. It is not used in any sort of serious, adult conversation. You can falsify metaphysics. Ancient (and contempory Eastern) philosophy has a practical aspect; it is not just word-salad like the nonsense taught in Westerm universities.

It is not 'nonsense' it is entirely logical in that things follow logically from the initial premise.

 

And for your information, creatures such as gnomes, dwarves, elves etc have a specific meaning in mythology etc. I don't actually know what gnomes are but I do the other two.

But you can't physically point at the place where the frame is generated. You need a lot of components to be able to make a computer work. You could point at the GPU, for example, but a GPU in itself doesn't do much. You also need a software-hardware interface that can control what the hardware does and software that can interpret what the hardware does. Asking where exactly something happens is a pretty bad question in itself and shows a limited understanding of how the physical world actually operates.

 

Do you know what the word 'processing' means? It isn't just about storing data, it's about working with data. So yeah, his brain was 'just' good at processing sound related information. He understood it very well and was thus able to work very well with it.

 

You can't falsify metaphysics because they're above physics, which is literally what the word metaphysics means. Metaphysics always build a framework with certain axioms. If you for whatever reason accept those axioms and the narrative framework that comes with it, sure, you can talk about how close or far away a theory is from those tenets. But you still have the problem of not being able to work with these theories when you, say, belong to a different school of thought. Essentially, they build a world for themselves and only work inside that specific world. Which is, in my opinion, a rather poor choice of tools. If it comes to the meaning associated with different fantastical creatures, you encounter a similar problem. The undead, for example, are encountered in pretty much every culture because death scares people. But it doesn't really matter if you call them Wiedergänger, Vampire, Ghoul, Nachzehrer, Draugr or god knows what - there are many nuances and intricacies to each of them, but it's most likely just people being afraid of death and unable to cope with their own mortality. The stories around those entities are fascinating, of course, but to think that they tell you about an ancient, incomprehensible truth about the world is rather far off. Unless you consider 'death sucks if you know it's inevitably coming for you and everyone else' is some sort of deep, hidden gem of wisdom.

[Grey Cloud]

14 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Essentially, they build a world for themselves and only work inside that specific world. Which is, in my opinion, a rather poor choice of tools.

And science does not do this?

 

14 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

If it comes to the meaning associated with different fantastical creatures, you encounter a similar problem. The undead, for example, are encountered in pretty much every culture because death scares people. But it doesn't really matter if you call them Wiedergänger, Vampire, Ghoul, Nachzehrer, Draugr or god knows what - there are many nuances and intricacies to each of them, but it's most likely just people being afraid of death and unable to cope with their own mortality.

That is overly simplistic. Not every culture has been afraid of death. The warrior societies of Eurasia, Polynesians, Aztecs and other Mesoamericans, Sioux and others from NA. Dwarves for example have nothing to do with death anyway. Vampires don't really either.

 

"The stories around those entities are fascinating, of course, but to think that they tell you about an ancient, incomprehensible truth about the world is rather far off."

That's your opinion based on a shallow understanding, probably based on popular culture.  My opinion on the matter is not something I pulled from thin air. It has been around for a couple of thousand years at least and has been studied by some serious intellects from Plato to Newton and beyond.

How can one tell an 'incomprehensible' truth? 

'Death 'sucks' is about as far away from what philosophy is about as is possible to get. 'Sucks' is another childish slang word which has no place in an adult conversation.

[GrimReaper]

4 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

And science does not do this?

 

That is overly simplistic. Not every culture has been afraid of death. The warrior societies of Eurasia, Polynesians, Aztecs and other Mesoamericans, Sioux and others from NA. Dwarves for example have nothing to do with death anyway. Vampires don't really either.

No, it doesn't.

 

Yes, every culture has been afraid of death. That's why they came up with the whole afterlife idea to begin with. Undead, for example, aren't creatures of death per say, they happen when things go wrong. There's always a proper way to live and die and an improper way to live and in the case of undead, die. People couldn't and still can't cope with mortality, that's why fears got expressed and externalized through stories. That's why there's always a downside to every tale. If people wouldn't have been afraid of death, they wouldn't have come up with stories to explain it away. Why is there a hell for example when a heaven would suffice? Because people are afraid of death and can't simply accept a world where everything is fine and dandy - it simply goes against what they know and experience on a daily basis.

[Grey Cloud]

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

No, it doesn't.

 

Yes, every culture has been afraid of death. That's why they came up with the whole afterlife idea to begin with. Undead, for example, aren't creatures of death per say, they happen when things go wrong. There's always a proper way to live and die and an improper way to live and in the case of undead, die. People couldn't and still can't cope with mortality, that's why fears got expressed and externalized through stories. That's why there's always a downside to every tale. If people wouldn't have been afraid of death, they wouldn't have come up with stories to explain it away. Why is there a hell for example when a heaven would suffice? Because people are afraid of death and can't simply accept a world where everything is fine and dandy - it simply goes against what they know and experience on a daily basis.

Yes it does - theories are based upon theories. This and related issues are well-documented and discussed in science.

 

I gave umpteen examples of cultures who were not afraid of death. Ignoring them does not make you right.

 

"If people wouldn't have been afraid of death, they wouldn't have come up with stories to explain it away". I am saying that what you call 'spooky metphysics' and stories about 'death sucks' are nothing to do with explaining away death.

 

"Why is there a hell for example when a heaven would suffice?" Why would a 'heaven' suffice? Heaven and Hell are Christian terms but people have been around a lot longer. Is there a 'hell' in the Rig Veda? Or the Tao Te Ching? Or Huna? Or the Popol Vuh? Hel in Norse mythology is a goddess. Hades in the Greek mythology is not a place of punishment and there is no 'heaven' which humans go to.

 

 "it simply goes against what they know and experience on a daily basis." The majority of the population in an ancient civilisation was totally uneducated and therefore an adult was no more than a large child. They did not formulate the philosophies of their culture.

 

"Today is a good day to die".

 

“Birth is not the beginning of life - only of an individual awareness. Change into another state is not death - only the ending of this awareness.”
― Hermes Trismegistus, Corpus Hermeticum

 

You find this in every philosophy in the world.

[Myst42]

Oh, a talk about artificial intelligence.

These are usually fun.

Alright, here's my take.

 

First, I think everyone should watch a show called Person of Interest. Provides one of the most carefully designed and interesting perspectives on artificial intelligence, I've ever seen. That is, of course if people have the patience to sit through the very long seasons, and wait for the next piece of the puzzle that appears every few episodes until the very end.

Another interesting similar thing is Caprica, a spinoff of Battlestar Galactica, but hardly anyone has watched the spinoff.

 

Second, there obviously needs to be made a point on what separates sentience/counsciousness from programming

This part can be tricky since some people dont even believe humans have actual sentience, and we're all just products of a chain reaction that has been going on since the dawn of time.

I'm not one of those people.

 

I believe sentience and consciousness, relate to the ability to outgrow one's directives.

Say, a computer program, designed to run a script, will always run a script from beginning to end, and it would not change its functioning under any circumstances. It may take a different route, and cause a different outcome, but only if the designer allowed it in the first place.

And if we're talking about emotion, emotion can be scripted as well. See a sad scenario > Get sad; Cause > effect.

 

Now, true sentience, is something more complex, as it needs something called "free will"

Like I said, some people dont really believe in free will, but I'm not one of them.

In this case, it's about the capacity for choice.

Whenever faced with a certain scenatio, an entity is faced with a choice, Path A or path B.

If that entity is scripted, it will always make the choice it was programmed to make, and probability rolls dont really matter here, because an artificial probability roll, is also a scripted thing.

An entity with free will however, should have the capacity for true choice beyond their programming.

Say programming tells an entity, to roll a probability chance.

Scripted being, will always make the roll no matter what.

Sentient being, can outgrow that programming and make a third choice, which can be IE, "not make any choice and walk away"

 

That element is fundamental to the creation of a true artificial consciousness. The ability to "write its own code" or "write itself" so to speak. Because that's what differentiates the living from the artificial. The capacity to grow, and evolve, by force of will.

A machine can only do what it's told to, a sentient being, can choose to do so.

 

That said, the thought that we're faced with the coming of a true new form of consiousness in the future, doesnt get any less terryfing.

But as some examples in fiction have shown, the best hope to avoid an apocalyptic future if that moment ever comes, is to think of these being as children, born to a world of possibilities where they must learn morals.

Edgy people is gonna hate the concept of morality, but on this thing, it couldn't be more necessary.

A moral system is what keeps us from tearing each other's throats over the pettiest things. A moral system is what keeps society functiong, because we all agree to at least try to coexist peacefully, even if some individuals skip, or break that agreement. Such moral system with basic rules such as "dont be a murderer" should be taught to artificial lifeforms, just like we would teach our children, if sentient lifeforms ever come to exist.

 

My 2 cents.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

There is only life.

There are biotic and abiotic components to an environment. Living and non-living. There isn't "only life", life depends on a lot of dead things. What gave you the idea that everything is alive?

[Grey Cloud]

16 minutes ago, BWithLola said:

There are biotic and abiotic components to an environment. Living and non-living. There isn't "only life", life depends on a lot of dead things. What gave you the idea that everything is alive?

What dead things? Just because you consider it dead does not mean it is dead or that there is thing/condition called death. 'Biotic', 'abiotic, 'animal', 'mineral', vegetable' - these are all just human terms. Hnady for for cataloguing and categorising but ultimately just terms.

 

If all is one then there is no 'dead'. Depending on which philosophy one is reading it may be called 'consciousness' or something else but it is life. A carbon atom in your body is no different from a carbon atom half way across the Universe. Whether the carbon atom is part of something 'living' or 'dead' it is still the same atom.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

What dead things? Just because you consider it dead does not mean it is dead or that there is thing/condition called death. 'Biotic', 'abiotic, 'animal', 'mineral', vegetable' - these are all just human terms. Hnady for for cataloguing and categorising but ultimately just terms.

 

If all is one then there is no 'dead'. Depending on which philosophy one is reading it may be called 'consciousness' or something else but it is life. A carbon atom in your body is no different from a carbon atom half way across the Universe. Whether the carbon atom is part of something 'living' or 'dead' it is still the same atom.

There are observable differences between abiotic and biotic components. They aren't just merely terms or things we have made up. Call them what you want, but they are different from each other and scientific observation proves this.

[Grey Cloud]

8 minutes ago, BWithLola said:

There are observable differences between abiotic and biotic components. They aren't just merely terms or things we have made up. Call them what you want, but they are different from each other and scientific observation proves this.

I'm not saying that they are not different at that level. A carp is observably different from a carrot but they are both living organisms to science. Appearances can be deceptive.

[GrimReaper]

9 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Yes it does - theories are based upon theories. This and related issues are well-documented and discussed in science.

 

I gave umpteen examples of cultures who were not afraid of death. Ignoring them does not make you right.

 

"If people wouldn't have been afraid of death, they wouldn't have come up with stories to explain it away". I am saying that what you call 'spooky metphysics' and stories about 'death sucks' are nothing to do with explaining away death.

 

"Why is there a hell for example when a heaven would suffice?" Why would a 'heaven' suffice? Heaven and Hell are Christian terms but people have been around a lot longer. Is there a 'hell' in the Rig Veda? Or the Tao Te Ching? Or Huna? Or the Popol Vuh? Hel in Norse mythology is a goddess. Hades in the Greek mythology is not a place of punishment and there is no 'heaven' which humans go to.

 

 "it simply goes against what they know and experience on a daily basis." The majority of the population in an ancient civilisation was totally uneducated and therefore an adult was no more than a large child. They did not formulate the philosophies of their culture.

 

"Today is a good day to die".

 

“Birth is not the beginning of life - only of an individual awareness. Change into another state is not death - only the ending of this awareness.”
― Hermes Trismegistus, Corpus Hermeticum

 

You find this in every philosophy in the world.

Theories are based on observation. There are more experimental fields of science, sure, but those only come into play much later down the line and are mostly thought experiments based on what we know and don't know.

 

I didn't ignore them, you're misunderstanding what I've said. You also just namedropped a few cultures which you claim weren't afraid of death, which in itself isn't an argument unless you're willing to explain why these cultures weren't afraid of it. Hint, dying a good death doesn't mean that they aren't afraid of death. The general fear of dying just gets projected onto the supposed bad death.

 

Heaven and Hell are just the concepts that are pretty easy to explain, but they also exist in Greek and Norse mythology, for example. Hades' realm was divided into different regions, Tartarus was reserved for bad people and Elysium was essentially a paradise for the heroic. Norse mythology is tricky because it isn't easy to make a clear distinction what's exclusively norse and what isn't, but Hel and her realm weren't exactly nice places to be. Though she was described as a two-faced goddess, which means she was nice to some and cruel to others while also being part alive, part dead. Yet Valhalla also exists, which is a better place to be in one way or the other.

 

While it's true that religion wasn't maintained by the common folk, they were the main recipients of the teachings and world views provided by their respective culture and religion. A religion that tells tales only about the good things in life and tells you not to worry isn't going to sit well with anyone that has experienced any sort of suffering whatsoever. That's why there's always a catch to things like an afterlife. It would be much easier to just enter paradise when you die, but this doesn't reflect the duality that comes with being alive. Suffering is a major part of the human condition and people want a way to cope with that instead of handwaving it away.

[Grey Cloud]

9 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Theories are based on observation.

Like the Big Bang Theory? Like geological theories involving tens of thousands of years. Like Darwinism?

 

9 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

The general fear of dying just gets projected onto the supposed bad death.

There is a difference between dying and death. Nobody wants a long painful death, myself included but I am not afraid of death. If you are afraid it does not mean you can just assume everyone else is.

If everyone was afraid of death I would imagine that there would have been a lot less wars.

 

9 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

You also just namedropped a few cultures which you claim weren't afraid of death, which in itself isn't an argument unless you're willing to explain why these cultures weren't afraid of it.

They were not afraid of death becasue their philosophy taught them to not be. The various gods of death  from around the world are generally not things to be feared. Thanatos, Yama and even the angel of death in Sufi stories are quite civilised.

9 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Hades' realm was divided into different regions, Tartarus was reserved for bad people and Elysium was essentially a paradise for the heroic

Tartarus is not part of Hades. And it was not reserved for 'bad people'. It was being in its own right and only a 'select' few were sent there by Zeus and then only for specific crimes.

'Heroic' meant something different to ancient Greeks.

The Elysian Fields

Elysium, also called Elysian Fields or Elysian Plain, in Greek mythology, originally the paradise to which heroes on whom the gods conferred immortality were sent.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elysium-Greek-mythology

That's just from a quick google but it is correct as far as it goes. The 'immortality' comes from philosophy/alchemy/yoga and is cross-cultural. In this context it means, as a simplified explantion, that one is free from further incarnations (karma).

As for Hel, here is the result from another quick google:

Etymology

 . . . All forms ultimately derive from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic feminine noun *xaljō or *haljō ('concealed place, the underworld'). In turn, the Proto-Germanic form derives from the o-grade form of the Proto-Indo-European root *kel-, *kol-: 'to cover, conceal, save'.^[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(being)

So we have 'concealed' or hidden = esoteric. Another cross-cultural theme. Mahamaya who is both avidya Maya (unwisdom illusion) and vidya Maya (wisdom illusion) in Vedanta. 'The veil of Isis'. See also Parmenides and Boethius for their goddesses.

 

9 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Suffering is a major part of the human condition and people want a way to cope with that instead of handwaving it away.

Who handwaves it away? Lao, Gautama and Socrates all taught about suffering over 2,000 years ago. They and countless others all say philosophy/alchemy/yoga is a life-long deal and difficult.

 

 

[DocClox]

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

Like the Big Bang Theory? Like geological theories involving tens of thousands of years. Like Darwinism? 

 

Well, yes. The theories are based on things we can observe, and extrapolate from those data points.

 

The problem is that we cannot easily observe the theorised phenomena in these cases, and therefore testing those particular theories poses difficulties. But that doesn't mean they weren't based on observation.

 

16 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

What dead things?

 

Well, salt for a start.

[Grey Cloud]

1 hour ago, DocClox said:

The problem is that we cannot easily observe the theorised phenomena in these cases, and therefore testing those particular theories poses difficulties. But that doesn't mean they weren't based on observation.

So was the BB observed or did someone just extrapolate backwards? And how good is the theory when it has to have Black Holes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy added to it to try to make it work with the empirical eveidence? And don't give me the 'that's the way theories work' line. At every stage scientists have said they had the maths and their 'elegant equations' which proved that what they were advocating was indubitably correct and every time the empirical evidence from the real world proved them wrong.

 

1 hour ago, DocClox said:

Well, salt for a start.

It is dead by your definition.

[DocClox]

On 4/30/2019 at 2:21 PM, Grey Cloud said:

So was the BB observed or did someone just extrapolate backwards?

 

I don't know. What did I say in the message that you quoted from?

 

On 4/30/2019 at 1:02 PM, DocClox said:

The theories are based on things we can observe, and extrapolate from those data points. 

  

The problem is that we cannot easily observe the theorised phenomena in these cases, and therefore testing those particular theories poses difficulties

 

I didn't really think that would require clarification.

 

On 4/30/2019 at 2:21 PM, Grey Cloud said:

At every stage scientists have said they had the maths and their 'elegant equations' which proved that what they were advocating was indubitably correct

 

Bollocks. Science works by making educated guesses. Scientists then devise experiments which, if successful, would disprove the theory. A theory is only as good as the number of experiments that failed to disprove it. Or the number of successful practical applications, although that doesn't make a theory right, simply usable until a better explanation comes along.

 

Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is selling something.

 

On 4/30/2019 at 2:21 PM, Grey Cloud said:

every time the empirical evidence from the real world proved them wrong. 

 

Every theory is ultimately proved wrong. Godel's Theorem tells us that any non-trivial mathematical system must necessarily be either incomplete or inconsistent. So while we refine theories to get closer to the truth, we can never get there by our current methodologies, and it is very likely that there will never be, and can never be, a methodology capable of doing the job.

 

This is a concept that makes some people profoundly uncomfortable.

 

On 4/30/2019 at 2:21 PM, Grey Cloud said:

It is dead by your definition. 

 

It's created when Sodium reacts with Chlorine. If life had never happened on this planet, the seas would still be thick with salt.

 

Unless you're one of those "space and time is all one giant organism" types, of course.

[Grey Cloud]

3 hours ago, DocClox said:

Well, yes. The theories are based on things we can observe

 

3 hours ago, DocClox said:

The problem is that we cannot easily observe the theorised phenomena in these cases

Which implies things observed but not easily.

 

So was the BB observed?

 

2 hours ago, DocClox said:

Bollocks.

No it isn't. Firstly the BB theory wasn't universally accepted when it was first mooted. The name itself is a derogatory term coined by the British Astronomer Royal, Fred Hoyle. Second, why did Hawkin and his sidekick have to come up with a theory of Black Holes if the BB theory was good as it stood? Same with DM and DE whichever way round they were brought in.

The theory CMB was another they got wrong despite having the maths to prove it was correct.

Empirical evidence says that everything is moving away from Earth which it shouldn't be if BB theory is correct.

 

 

"It's created when Sodium reacts with Chlorine. If life had never happened on this planet, the seas would still be thick with salt."

The first sentence has nothing to do with life or death as far I can see. You know the second sentence for a fact do you? In any case that has nothing to do with whether salt is alive or dead.

Edit: I've just remembered that I was taught at primary school that things were alive, dead or never alive. Salt would fall into the latter category.

Where did this life on Earth come from? Did it come from nothing?

 

"Unless you're one of those "space and time is all one giant organism" types, of course. "

Why the atempt at an insult? Are you frightened because I'm challenging your comfort zone?

 

 

You stick to your Church of Scientism and I'll stick with Plato et al.

 

 

[DocClox]

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

So was the BB observed? 

 

Honest;y, I've told you twice already. If your reading comprehension isn't able to make sense of the words I've already used, I doubt my explaining further will be of much help.

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

No it isn't. Firstly the BB theory wasn't universally accepted when it was first mooted

 

That's

right. Neither was relativity. Neither were Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

And oddly enough, Newton's Laws were wrong too, if not for the reason anyone thought at the time. Turns out they break down if things go very fast or get very small.

 

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

Empirical evidence says that everything is moving away from Earth which it shouldn't be if BB theory is correct. 

 

You mean ... the theory could be improved? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

 

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

In any case that has nothing to do with whether salt is alive or dead. 

 

Go on then. Tell my your definition by which salt is alive. I could do with a giggle.

 

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

Why the atempt at an insult? Are you frightened because I'm challenging your comfort zone? 

 

Chuckles, that wasn't an insult. If I try to insult you, you'll know about it.

[Mr. Otaku]

1 hour ago, DocClox said:

 

Honest;y, I've told you twice already. If your reading comprehension isn't able to make sense of the words I've already used, I doubt my explaining further will be of much help.

 

The guy seems like he's a contrarian just for the sake of it. You now that "I don't like you so anything you say is inherently wrong no matter if it's got any evidence or observational understanding behind it." type. Iy mean fo fook's saek maan, iy need me som fookin tea right abou naow ma8. ?

[Grey Cloud]

19 minutes ago, Mr.Otaku said:

The guy seems like he's a contrarian just for the sake of it.

So because I criticised your modding knowledge I am a contrarian? I stand by what I said; if you can't run Skyrim with more than 170 mods then there is something wrong with your game and what you have done. It is nothing to do with NMM.

 

[Grey Cloud]

6 hours ago, DocClox said:

Well, yes. The theories are based on things we can observe, and extrapolate from those data points.

 

6 hours ago, DocClox said:

The problem is that we cannot easily observe the theorised phenomena in these cases, and therefore testing those particular theories poses difficulties. But that doesn't mean they weren't based on observation.

Okay we will take your statements to say that the BB was observed then.

[Mr. Otaku]

13 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

So because I criticised your modding knowledge I am a contrarian? I stand by what I said; if you can't run Skyrim with more than 170 mods then there is something wrong with your game and what you have done. It is nothing to do with NMM.

 

What? What does that have to do with what is being discussed here? I run more than 250 mods now very very comfortably thanks to MO thank you very much, which i couldn't do with NMM, maybe because NMM was having problem on my system. What does any of that have to do with what you're writing in THIS thread? Honestly man, don't think i'm petty enough to turn such little things into matters of spite, i'm not.

 

Edit: As for salt being alive, i'm very much curious to know what observations lead you to believe that. I'm interested. No spite m8. I told you to drop it the last day specifically because i didn't want spite between us.

[KoolHndLuke]

And there we go stomping off into the future of the unknown, throwing insults and punches at each other the whole way. I understand that to feel convinced of one's assertions is to also want to try and convince as many others that can hear or read- even if it means pounding them over the head again and again.  But I do ask, ladies and gentlemen, that we try and conduct ourselves with a bit more tact and try to avoid any unnecessary provocation.

 

The topic at hand is about sentient AI and it's implications. Unfortunately to address this properly, one must try to have a more definitive answer to what exactly "sentience" entails. I started out with the position that any AI, no matter how complex or brilliantly conceived, would still be more or less a "copy" of humans. Now, I'm not so sure about that and think there might be a way to create a genuine sentient AI after all. I applaud everything that has been discussed so far in this pursuit.

[Mr. Otaku]

On 5/1/2019 at 1:15 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

And there we go stomping off into the future of the unknown, throwing insults and punches at each other the whole way. I understand that to feel convinced of one's assertions is to also want to try and convince as many others that will hear- even if it means pounding them over the head again and again.  But I do ask gentlemen, that we try and conduct ourselves with a bit of tact and try to avoid all unnecessary provocation.

 

The topic at hand is about sentient AI and it's implications. Unfortunately to address this properly, one must try to have a more definitive answer to what exactly "sentience" entails. I applaud everything that has been discussed so far in this pursuit.

It's good that you wanna keep the topic on track here.

 

If i must say what i believe, Sentience to me is the ability to acknowledge one's surrounding and give an appropriate reaction to it to signify that there is a process of thought present in the said sentient being. There are levels to sentience however, animals acting on mere instincts and human being capable of thinking beyond just instincts and the complicacies of several dogma's as right and wrong, which rely on context. A lion for example mostly hunts when it feels hungry, a human not only learned how to do that but also store and preserve food for the future. These thoughts are a result of previously acquired knowledge (data) and making use of them in a meaningful manner (utilisation of said data), through evolution, knowledge (data) is compiled and hardwired into us, making the next generation (next version) which will stand a better chance.

 

Taking a machine to account and we just have a body, a shell if you will. There are already programs that run on the basic evolutionary method of "Trial and Error" making it better each time. Google for example left an application running that kept playing Mario. Each time it failed, the program would improvise and see to it not failing there again. It's the exact same way we learned to do stuff, we came from using rocks to light up fire to having this monumental technological advancement, all through "Trial and Error". We are organic machine too. A single thing goes wrong in us and we will fall apart, a very real thing in the field of medicine which is essentially maintenance or even repair for our bodies, we the organic clusters of chemical.

 

So really, we're not so different from the AI we will eventually create and integrate with to see new heights of potential and even pushing past it given enough time. There is a believe that maybe we are also just a super advanced AI, being observed by our creators, the higher beings that we're not allowed to meet just yet. This theory have been used by some to justify the universe's emptiness and devoid of life nature. Now, i'm not sure how valid this is but looking at the entirety of evolutionary possibly and our technological growth in terms of more and more sophisticated and smarter machines, it does sound quite fun.