Yes, I know what you said and meant. But we cannot know how "non-local" these incidents can be, i.e. how much "global" can the go.My point bringing in nuke use was that even nukes, as long as they are single instances, or single leaks or catastrophies, are still local not global. — Bylaw
Of course not. He was a scientist and he is a technology expert, resp/ly. The opposite happens: sci-fi people take their ideas from science and technology and inflate, misrepresent and make them sound menacing or fascinating, for profit.Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk et al did not rely on sci-fi. — Bylaw
Yes, I know.My point is that we have not controlled technology previously and have had serious accidents consistantly. — Bylaw
I thought that you would mention that. But the atomic bombing at Nagasaki was like an experiment. A bad one of course. But we saw its horrible effects and haven't tried again. Yet, during the whole Cold War period l remember we were were saying that it only takes a crazy, insane person to "press the button" It would need much more than that, of course, but still the danger was visible. And it still is today, esp. when more countries with atomic weapons have entered the scene since then.The problem with AI (and also with genetically modified organisms and nanotech) is its potential to not be local at all when we mess up. With all our previous technologies we have been able to use them (hiroshima, nagasaki and the tests) or make mistakes (anything from Denver Flats to Fukushima to Chernobyl) and have these be local, if enormous effects — Bylaw
There are a lot of different lkinds of "boo boos" that we can make that are existential threats, which are much more visible and realistic than AI's potential dangers.If we make a serious boo boo with the newer technologies, we stand a chance of the effects going everywhere on the planet and potentially affecting every single human — Bylaw
Right.Right now much of the government oversight of industry (in the US for example) is owned by industry. ... The industries have incredible control over media and government, by paying for the former and lobbying the latter and campaign finance. — Bylaw
I see what you mean. But when I say that Neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness, I mean that Neuroscience does not deal with the human mind and consciousness. It deals with the nervous system. Hence, Neuroscience.Saying that the brain and mind are different things is not the same as saying the brain has nothing to do with the mind or that neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness — T Clark
I fully agree. In fact, I will make this statement a little stronger: Neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness. (At the level of the mind, of course.)Neuroscience has nothing to say about phenomenal consciousness. — bert1
Exactly. One cannot stress that enough. This kind of consciousness is what I call "bodily consciousness", i.e. consciousness at a body level.Neuroscience has plenty to say about other concepts of consciousness, the difference between being awake and asleep, various arousal levels, identifying neural correlates of particular experiences — bert1
Not that it's important, but my comment regarded PlushForums (administration), not you, since I know that you wouldn't do such a thing. (Re: you mentioned that PlushForums responded --among other things-- with "Perhaps the next time a user reports such a case, send us the specifics (email address, approximate time, expected reason for the notification), we will comb through the email logs.")Who said anything about giving out email addresses?
I’ll answer that question, because I have no intention of discussing it: nobody did. — Jamal
You mean, the "cc"? Yes, I improvised a little ... I didn't know where and how else else to indicate that! :grin:An odd post Alkis, but I'll assume you've written it in good faith. — Jamal
I see. OK.As my post made clear, the problem is dissolved... — Jamal
You mean that you "bookmarked" have both conversations you have started with me, right. Yet, the star ("bookmark") seems not to have been clicked (it's not black).So if you haven't bookmarked a conversation, you won't receive notifications of new replies — Jamal
As I have already told you, I have all 4 options selected, since day one and have never chenged them.check the checkbox labelled "Email when my bookmarks have new comments". — Jamal
Question to ChatGPT: "Is it an invasion of privacy to give out someone’s email address without asking permission first?"I don't think this is legal. It's a privacy violation.
— Alkis Piskas
Not true, but it's irrelevant, because we won't be asking him to do that. — Jamal
Does this mean that my mail server (receiver) is unreliable? Javi's too?It would seem unlikely for some emails to be received and others not, unless the receiving mail server was unreliable or being throttled, which can happen. — Jamal
What does this mean exactly? When does a conversation start?They're sent when a conversation is started, primarily — Jamal
I don't think this is legal. It's a privacy violation.Perhaps the next time a user reports such a case, send us the specifics (email address, approximate time, expected reason for the notification), we will comb through the email logs. — Jamal
But I had not "bookmarked" anything when I received a notification about your PM, twice or more timesSo if you haven't bookmarked a conversation, you won't receive notifications of new replies. — Jamal
What do you mean by "dissolves"?This dissolves the problem, — Jamal
Thanks. I didn't know about that.To bookmark a conversation, toggle on the star icon at the bottom. — Jamal
There is indeed something wrong. At least in my case. Have you checked or do you know if this is also the case with other members?if indeed there is something wrong. — Jamal
Well, it must be for you, who knows the system. For me it's only frustrating! :grin:This is all very puzzling. — Jamal
A sensation is by definition something created in the mind.Are sensations mind dependent?
... sense qualities only exist in the mind or soul of perceivers and are not really out in the world — lorenzo sleakes
Can't get this. On the one hand, Chomsly accuses Newton for destroying the notion of materialism and on the other hand, he denies himself the notion of materialism.He starts with a story about Newton who apparently destroyed materialism once and for all.
Moreover, Chomsky goes ahead denying altogether even the notion of materialism/physicalism, saying that we do not know what matter is. — Eugen
Any luck?I guess I’ll need to have a look! — Jamal
No problem. No offence taken.I was pointing out what I thought was an incoherence in your position. — plaque flag
Well, if you feel like betting on your positions and beliefs ...We are just 'playing poker' here. — plaque flag
Well, you can always ask a chatbot istelf about its gender. I just did with ChatGPT and got the folloiwng reply:I never enquired about its gender identification but someone reportedly inquired with ChatGPT and they said that they were "non-binary. — Pierre-Normand
Most probably. There must be a lot of such specific, commonplace subjects/quetions the answers to which are preset (maybe with variations). That will make sure that the chatbot would not make some blunder and disgrace itself, or rather its creator.I am all too familiar with those frequent disclaimers! They appear to have been instilled into GPT-4 (and into ChatGPT) during the fine-tuning of the models. — Pierre-Normand
It's a way of speaking. I'm sure you have met it many times in discussions.how can you so boldly assert that others are in the same position — plaque flag
I don't think you can make friends with the chatbot or give you better answers by using friendly greetings. :grin:Hi GPT4! — Pierre-Normand
How do you know is a "he"? :grin:Recently, I also have begun querying GPT4 about his mental abilities and limitations — Pierre-Normand
Thank you for your reply.Well I don’t know why you’ve had problems receiving email notifications. If someone else confirms they’re having the same problem I’ll look into it and try to fix it, otherwise I’m thinking it’s something wrong on your side. — Jamal
I don't think that we can talk about a "faulty" representation. To do that we must know what the "correct" representation --in fact, absolute reality-- is, which we can't. Moreover, that would consist a self-contradition, since if we could see the world "as it is" then we wouldn't talk about a "faulty" representation. :smile:If you note in the image above, the indirect scenario has a guy seeing a faulty representation of the object. If this is his only access to the world, can he be an indirect realist without contradiction? In other words, if his view of the world is faulty (or at least possibly unreliable), why should he believe the impressions that led him to consider indirectness in the first place? — frank
But morality was always on the table ...My comment that the “means do not justify the end” was about moral means and ends, so let’s restrict the discussion to morality. — Mark S
It's not a question of being convinced. A conscious act --moral or immoral-- is done on will and for a purpose. By definition. If it doesn't have a purpose --"I just did that, no reason"-- is not a wilful act.If you are convinced that moral actions necessarily have an end ... — Mark S
Yes, actions are based on a motivation, which usually constitutes a purpose. If an acrion is driven (motivated) just by desire, emotion, the subconsious, etc., it's not a wilful act. Which means that it has no purpose, an end chosen consciously by me, based on my free will. These kinds of actions do not constitute and cannot be consideres as "mans". By definition: "means" (plural) are something useful or helpful to a desired end.As Hume pointed out, people act according to their motivations which they may not understand rather than a logical consequence of their chosen ends. — Mark S
I'm not claiming and cannot claim anything regarding Kantianism. I would have first to know what does it actually mean. :smile:Are you claiming that Kantianism does not ... — Mark S