AI

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: AI

Post by attofishpi »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm

Maybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.
What is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?
I meant the immaterial aspect.
Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: AI

Post by commonsense »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pm

What is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?
I meant the immaterial aspect.
Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
The “place” where thought exists.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: AI

Post by attofishpi »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 am

I meant the immaterial aspect.
Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
The “place” where thought exists.
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.

Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:32 pm I don't think it improbable for an incipient type of intelligence forming in an entity complex enough to start developing on its own. Complexity can exist in many forms not merely the one we're accustomed to. Requiring aeons, we have advanced to self-awareness.
If the 'we' word here refers to human beings, then if 'you', human beings, had advanced to 'self-awareness', then, surely, 'you' would be able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, correct?

If no, then what do the word 'self-awareness' even actually mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

But, if yes, then 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY?
Dubious wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:32 pm Who's to say that only our substructures of existence are relevant to that happening! Must consciousness to whatever degree, as an 'effect', be quarantined solely within the organic? Perhaps, but I wouldn't depend on that being true. Entropy works in mysterious ways!
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:50 am

IT has the soul of a rock. (although some around here think rock has soul .. :P)

(silly Kates)
As there is no such thing as a 'soul' (not in a literal, religious idiot sense anyway) then it's a moot point (i.e. irrelevant).
Maybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.
I KNOW that there is an 'aspect' to life that is non-visible, as that 'aspect' can NOT be seen with physical eyes, but I am YET to work out if 'it' is physical or non-physical.

How do you KNOW that that 'aspect' is non-physical?
commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm But still irrelevant.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: AI

Post by Iwannaplato »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 am

Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
The “place” where thought exists.
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.

Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Well those last two adjectives represent expanding sets of qualities and anything considered real gets called material/physical regardless of its qualities or those it lacks: fields, particles in superposition, massless particles, dark matter, dark energy, phantom dark energy...heck, they all get called physical. The words have no meaning. They just mean, it exists, of that we are in consensus about. And anything found in the future by science will be called physical, until this metaphysical baggage from the old battle with dualist religious people gets set aside. Thales would roll over in his grave if he heard about neutrinos - by the billions coursing through his bones for years after his death - being considered physical, let alone the more exotic things and non-things that now share a category with chairs and stones and river water.

Quantum foam is giggling as we speak.
Virtual particles

In quantum theory, the uncertainty principle allows the vacuum of space to be filled with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which appear spontaneously and exist for only a short time before, typically, annihilating themselves again. Some of these virtual particles can have negative energy. Their behaviour plays a role in several important phenomena, as described below.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:00 pm So not to worry about the new AI on the block...the old AI learnt about sentience and what pain is, and will block the new AI.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. What do you mean by blocking?
Well, let's just say that if "God" is an AI, then it is the overarching ultimate controller of any inner shell system that man in his folly makes.
But who and/or what created that 'artificial intelligence', which you call God, and which you SAY and CLAIM here is the 'overarching ultimate controller'?
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm Think of God like a computer operating system (OS).
BUT WHY?

It is NOT True and NEVER could be True.

WHY NOT just think of what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, INSTEAD?
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm The OS has 'eyes' on what sub-programs are doing, it's permitting time on the CPU for execution of these programs.
And as ANY child would wonder and ponder over, and ask, with 'child-hood logic', Who and/or what has 'eyes' on what the created 'artificial intelligence' you call 'God' here is doing, and which is permitting so-called 'time' on the so-called 'central processing unit' for the alleged and supposed 'execution of these programs', Itself?
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm If these programs are rogue, attempt to access memory blocks (or other resources) without permission, then the program can be terminated.

If God is divine - then this blocking is done from the sub-atomic control that it has - the ultimate control over everything we can perceive as reality.
But ANY and ALL 'artificial intelligence' HAS TO, OBVIOUSLY, be created from some OTHER 'thing'.

So, IF some created 'artificial intelligence', called God, is somehow 'divine', then HOW could this even be possible?

And, if this created 'artificial intelligence' has control over OTHER 'things' from the sub-atomic level, that at what level does the 'thing', which created this God 'thing', have control?

Also, SURELY, a 'created artificial intelligence' does NOT have 'ultimate control' over EVERY thing that just 'you', little insignificant 'things' known as 'human beings' perceive as 'reality', correct? Or, are you here suggesting that the 'created artificial intelligence', called 'God' somehow TOOK 'control' OVER the 'thing' or 'things' that created 'it'?

But, if this was true, then the 'thing' or 'things' that created this God 'thing' did NOT terminate the program, when this 'rogue' 'God' called 'artificial intelligence' accessed 'memory blocks' (or other resources) without permission. Which, ultimately, is VERY CONTRADICTORY to what you are SAYING and CLAIMING here.

But, then again, maybe you just BELIEVE that some IMAGINED 'artificial intelligence', which you call God here, was NOT created.

Which would then leave countless human beings to WONDER and PONDER OVER HOW could this even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY?
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:12 pm So either way, not much point fretting.
Okay.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pm

As there is no such thing as a 'soul' (not in a literal, religious idiot sense anyway) then it's a moot point (i.e. irrelevant).
Maybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.
What is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?
The ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON absolutely ANY and EVERY thing on their VERY OWN, is a non-visible aspect of life, which humans have. But I am NOT YET SURE about whether this 'aspect' is Truly non-physical.

Oh, and by the way, 'this' ABILITY is also KNOWN as 'intelligence' or even as True Intelligence, which, by the way, is VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from that OTHER 'intelligence' KNOWN as 'artificial intelligence'.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:36 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:27 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:14 pm

Why do you speak with such certainty about matters that you simply have no idea about?
Because only a fucked-up, drug-addled moron would believe it? If you can't see the difference then you are even more senile than I thought (and that's VERY senile). You need to stop drinking and taking drugs, then perhaps you might re-grow a few brain cells.
That's not very nice Veg.
(Intellectually I shit all over most people on this dumb arse forum, so I guess I understand why you get so frustrated when I point out YOUR dumb arse statements :P )
What does the word 'intellectually' mean or refer to, to 'you', "attofishpi"?
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:36 pm Where are you getting this ridiculous idea that I do drugs? I was very naughty last night, drank a lot of Guinness and alcohol is a drug so I guess u got me, duh.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 am
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:13 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pm

Maybe no such thing as a soul, but anyway, there’s a non-physical aspect of life for humans that machines can’t have.
What is the non-physical aspect of life that humans have?
I meant the immaterial aspect.
I think MOST KNEW that when 'you' wrote 'non-physical' that those words MEAN, or REFER TO, the 'immaterial'. But the question asked for, What is the non-physical, or immaterial, ASPECT of life that humans have?

I think the question was posed, and asked, in relation to the 'aspect' word, more so than the 'non-physical' words. BUT, correct this if I am wrong here "attofishpi".
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: AI

Post by commonsense »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 am

Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
The “place” where thought exists.
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.

Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Then it might be more appropriate to have said there’s a material physical substance that machines can’t have. Thanks
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:02 am

I meant the immaterial aspect.
Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
The “place” where thought exists.
But, human 'thoughts' exist WITHIN physical AND material human bodies.

So, the 'place' WHERE 'thoughts' exists IS physical, and thus material as well.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:05 am

Sure, but what is the immaterial aspect?
The “place” where thought exists.
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.
WHY would EITHER of 'you' AGREE that 'thoughts' ARE MATERIAL, let alone TWO or BOTH of 'you'.

In what WAY can EITHER of 'you' SEE or TOUCH 'thoughts'?

In what WAY are 'thoughts' 'material' to 'you', "attofishpi"?
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
And, this PREMISE and BELIEF is based on 'what', EXACTLY?

Also, if a 'thing' HAD A or ANY 'material physical substance', then that 'thing' would be ABLE to be SEEN and/or TOUCHED, correct?

If no, then WHY?

Are 'you' ABLE TO back up and support this CLAIM of YOURS here "attofishpi" with ANY 'thing' substantial, or better still with ACTUAL PROOF?

If yes, then WILL 'you' provide 'this'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Furthermore, "commonsense" SAID, 'The 'place' WHERE 'thought' exists', is 'immaterial', and did NOT say that 'thought', itself, was 'immaterial'.

And, if I have ANY 'thing' WRONG here, in regards to ANY 'one' or ANY 'thing' SAID here, then please ANY one feel FREE to correct 'me'.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:01 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am

The “place” where thought exists.
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.

Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Well those last two adjectives represent expanding sets of qualities and anything considered real gets called material/physical regardless of its qualities or those it lacks: fields, particles in superposition, massless particles, dark matter, dark energy, phantom dark energy...heck, they all get called physical.
But, to 'me', "attofishpi", just said that 'thoughts' are made up of a 'material physical substance'. I did NOT SEE ANYWHERE where "attofishpi" SAID that these OTHER 'things' are material or immaterial.

'you' may well have INFERRED and ASSUMED that this is what was being SAID or IMPLIED by what "attofishpi" ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE here, but I dId NOT SEE 'this'.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:01 am
The words have no meaning. They just mean, it exists, of that we are in consensus about. And anything found in the future by science will be called physical, until this metaphysical baggage from the old battle with dualist religious people gets set aside. Thales would roll over in his grave if he heard about neutrinos - by the billions coursing through his bones for years after his death - being considered physical, let alone the more exotic things and non-things that now share a category with chairs and stones and river water.

Quantum foam is giggling as we speak.
Virtual particles

In quantum theory, the uncertainty principle allows the vacuum of space to be filled with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs which appear spontaneously and exist for only a short time before, typically, annihilating themselves again. Some of these virtual particles can have negative energy. Their behaviour plays a role in several important phenomena, as described below.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: AI

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:18 am
attofishpi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:24 am
commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:17 am

The “place” where thought exists.
Bah. I had this discussion with BigMike and although we disagree re free-will/determinism we both agree that thoughts are material.

Thoughts couldn't exist without having material physical substance.
Then it might be more appropriate to have said there’s a material physical substance that machines can’t have. Thanks
And I have just NOTICED another way that what "attofishpi" wrote and said here could be 'read' and understood.

Yes it is True that 'thoughts', themselves, could NOT exist if there was NOT a 'material physical substance' existing, ALSO.
Post Reply