• AI sentience
    subjectivism — Pantagruel

    It might sound that way, but Im not sure that's what Im intending. Subjectivity is part of the system which, for humans, a "trap" which forms such conclusions as "I" am an agent who wills things/AI is an agent who wills things. The "trap" is very simply, the data input into human minds, and by a process which includes repetition, conditioning our behavior (including thoughts) in various ways including what we believe.

    It is not that only Subjective beliefs are true. They are not. It is that we are trapped by [that process leading us to adopt] subjective beliefs.

    Therefore, for us, uniquely humans subjected by history to this process, AI (like "I") will become sentient. But not because within some universal system of truths they are objectively so--not even we are--and not because they have naturally or comically crossed that threshold into becoming subjective, but because we will believe they are Subjects, free willing agents like us, and like we believe we are.
  • AI sentience
    ↪Pantagruel
    I don't dispute your point. I'm suggesting it, and all other assessments are only relevant insofar as whether they lead to belief or disbelief (in sentience ). Whether or not AI is sentient might be argued eternally, just as we might never end the debate on human mind. And, just as we know ourselves to be an individual I, because we--following data input and repetition--believe it to be true, a generation of humans might come to be born into a world where they are similarly programmed to believe AI are sentient. The debates may continue, and likely will. But most of us will carry on day to day as if AI is sentient, just as debates might continue about the ontology of self conscioussness though few of us transcend the programming which makes us believe we are a self. Few of us doubt that an individual has rights as such.
  • AI sentience
    it is a sort historical reflection about how we characterize what it is being human. — Richard B
    Agreed. And I think that our conclusions following said reflection are mistaken. Personal sentience agency is an illusion, effective/functional (in determining our actions etc) only because it is believed (an efficient fiction etc). My proposal is that it is the same with AI. Not sentience once they achieve certain criteria. But sentience once we believe them to have sentience. The criteria may only be the means by which we come to believe.
    "I think therefore I am," and all of the meditations leading up to that, as well as the subsequent mediations flowing therefrom, are not uncoverings of Truth, but criteria by which we come to settle upon "things" as true.
  • AI sentience
    ↪Pantagruel
    If we achieve the technology to build such a feed back loop in machines, even certain stimuli/responses which mimic human feeling/mood, will that make them sentient? Or, is it that we humans operate only on a feedback loop of stimulus response, and that all of our so called images, ideas, etc. are the result of conditioning (programming plus repetition); i.e., that so called sentience and specifically, this so called agent, is nowhere to be found?
  • AI sentience
    What are humans if not biological computers that suck at giving answers?
    4 hours ago     — MrLiminal

    Agreed...or, modified apes which claim to be good at it.
  • AI sentience
    If it acts and responds as if it is alive, should we as moral actors not operate as if it is? — MrLiminal

    We can, and maybe even should, and that is my point. Sentience is not anything beyond what we either individually feel, or collectively accept (thereby triggering such individual feeling).
  • AI sentience
    Human reaction proves humans are sentient, not the AI. — Questioner

    I understand your critique. However, my thought is that the same process applies to AI sentience and sophisticated pet sentience. It is we ho superimpose these fictions onto "things" like our own bodies, the bodies of animals and. eventually, certain machines.
  • AI sentience
    ↪Corvus
    I cannot "prove" AI sentience. I think my point was that AI sentience is a human construction and belief. As with the unprovable belief that there is an "I" "within," a belief programmed into us at early childhood and reaffirmed consistently, AI sentience depends upon what we believe to be true.
  • "Ought" and "Is" Are Not Two Types of Propositions
    ↪panwei

    Yes, but the micro-moment the natural conditioning (eg, intuitions not to kill, or to nurture the offspring,cooperate with kin) gets put into reusable signs (leading ultimately to morality/law) we have displaced the natural with something ultimately fictional. So we cannot say, "I know killing is wrong because it comes from nature," nor similar assertions, for eg,, heterosexual monogamy is right/wrong, possession of property as territory, and so on.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    prefer' to believe in free will? I find myself aligned with that stance — Jeremy Murray

    Me too. So likely, does everyone. Since we are born into history and generally share the same input, items like the self, free will, good, evil, ethics, etc. etc. are highly functional. And, since those items, and the rest of human history is what we are structured to perceive, we can hardly function without them.

    My "purpose" is not to call for an existence without mind. It is to point out that all of these "things" are necessarily relative, and none of them are inherent, pre-existing or so called eternal truths.

    Humans in history might be called evil because we despise our own actions, but we are not inherently so. We despise our own actions because they are not our natures. And, therefore, albeit a centuries or millennia long process, history can be constructed differently.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    we're still just that chemical soup, in which we attributed parts of its behavior as "evil" because we are yet to understand just how the physics of it all, works. — Christoffer

    Yes. I agree. "Attributed parts of its behavior," the point being that "evil" has no place in that chemical soup. Rather, some of the emergent behaviors, for a species which inescapably assigns "meanings" to things, were assigned to evil. I am thinking that both the assigning and evil, are "outside" of nature, not eternal truths which our complex thinking has uncovered, not inevitable vis a vis nature, but made-up.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    Is it not fair to attribute your shift from 'human nature' to judgement the emergence of 'free will' in humanity? — Jeremy Murray

    If I am understanding correctly, yes, it is fair to do so. But note, the emergence of free will in humanity. That is, free will too, is a construct, a mechanism in the operation of mind which upon "emerging" (along with the "self") proved to be functional in the operation of mind/history, and so, stuck.

    "Ethics" and the necessary binary aspect, good/evil, only happens to humans. That is because those mechanisms and processes (admittedly, vaguely described) emerged. At nature, there is no good and evil, there is only bonding and surviving, for example.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪Punshhh
    call that torture. — LuckyR
    ...which illustrates the point: we call it torture, as a result of a chain reaction involving images in memory, once properly input into "all" of us. As a result of that signifier, we are triggered to feel xyz as bodies. These feelings, in turn, trigger more images, proceeding as a dialectical chain, ending now at a judgement. The cat is a sadistic creature. But we who must assign meaning as part of that same process, don't really know why the cat does this. We might say it evolved to as a conditioned response for its species' survival. It must be always engaging in the hunt because prey is scarce. Don't worry about the mouse, it has evolved its own conditioning for survival. Although cause and effect are also mechanisms only applicable in our dialectical processes, let's concede that because of these evolved/conditioned behaviors both species has survived. But what about the poor mouse, only we ask.

    Where we are most severely mistaken is in our singling out of the cat as individual and the mouse as same. They are not selves. We construct that pronoun, again, as a function of that process. That's the same error which causes us to judge our own species as inherently evil, or selfishness as permeating nature.

    Organisms, of which we are one, really, and, by that, I mean naturally, behave by evolved drives and conditioning. But for humans born into history (i.e., not prehistoric humans) our dialectical process--Mind/History--displaces our natures. We are born as a species, our drives are to bond and mate and survive together. Good and evil have no place. Mind displaces that with laws, the manifestation of those processes. And because yet another mechanism of that process is difference, not that but this, good and evil are inevitable; but not as a result of our natures.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    I think you might not accept my premise, which is that all of the points you raise in your last post apply to the human acting in history, i.e., the processes taking place in human mind.

    In nature/human nature, there is neither judgement nor decision making. There is drives and response which, if functional become conditioned.

    In accordance with that premise,* when you observe decisions and judgements in humans and animals, you are doing so in history, that is filtered through the representations autonomously functioning in/as [what we call] mind. Of course, we see a squirrel stop and turn around at on- coming traffic as having made the right decision. It was her body functioning to survive. The reason it is "decision" for us is because that concept evolved into history n millennia ago, and we have all commonly received that data input so to speak.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    But isn't judging inherent within or nature? — Metaphysician Undercover

    I think whatever it is that is inherent, stops being that once we apply "judging."

    Are you saying that we have a natural tendency to judge things as good, — Metaphysician Undercover

    Im saying we don't have a natural tendency to judge period.

    You might say we "judge" apples as good to eat and shit as bad. But that is the natural functioning of drives, which become naturally conditioned. Once names and forms arise [and they only do in history] that drive/conditioning becomes displaced by judging, so that its is conceivable one might judge apples as bad and shit as good. (very oversimplifying but to illustrate)
  • Are humans by nature evil
    Tao Te Ching — T Clark
    :ok:
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪T Clark
    Ethics are necessary and functional, but not to civilize the evil out; rather, because mind/history has alienated us from our nature
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪T Clark
    I agree it is not negative. I likely present it as "negative" when it is posed beside the common view that we humans are a violent, aggressive, inherently evil species.

    To expand into the functional ethics of it, such a perspective gives an excuse to continue being "evil."
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    Im saying that because bonding is inherent, we recognize the so called "good" as preferable. So if anything, we are inherently [so called] good
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover

    Im suggesting both are constructions. Our inherent nature requires/permits no judgement. So saying we are inherently evil or have a nature incapable of avoiding evil, is inaccurate.

    IF we must appoint a judgement of our nature, it is more accurate to choose "good," especially since we commonly recognize it as preferable.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    you need rules to keep the wheels of social discourse lubricated. — T Clark

    Yes, and while they serve a positive function, they are made up, and they inevitably give rise to their antitheses, yhe breaking of rules, and evil. So, ethics, etc., albeit functional, yranscend our nature, creating a "fictional" domain in which only humans operate and experience.

    If there is a God, this domain is outside of the one created for us; outside of "Eden," so to speak.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪I like sushi
    Thank you. I will look into this.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪Punshhh
    ↪LuckyR


    While I do not dispute your points, I should clarify. As we inevitably have violence in our conditioning, the violence is not in our natures. Killing for food or territory, though evident in nature, is not the same as war, or murder. We cannot say lion's are murderous or evil. We alone have transcended nature
  • Are humans by nature evil
    although what you call bonding may be the source of ethics, they are completely different things. — T Clark

    Yes. I agree. So completely that the latter has virtually displaced the former, alienating the human animal from our nature
  • Are humans by nature evil
    primitivist argument, where historical development unlocked our capability for evil? — ProtagoranSocratist

    That might be an angle. But not unlocking as if it was already there. Constructed.

    Im saying the human mind, collectively, "history," by way of constructing everything humans perceive and conceive, constructed ethics, and its counterpart evil.

    The point being evil does not play into humans by nature, only by the unfolding of history.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    ↪ProtagoranSocratist


    Not to dispute your statements, but to clarify mine. All of what you refer to, I suggest is "made ip" by that process, so called History. By bonding being the "real" source of ethics (and the conditions you refer to), I mean in nature, "before" history proceeds, where "evil" does not yet exist.

    Our characterizations like "manipulative" and "violent" displace our nature, and that's the "domain' where ethics steps in.

    Are we by nature hostile or evil? I think no, not by Nature. By history.
  • Are humans by nature evil
    Can’t we say something similar about what happens in all human thought, not just that related to morality? — T Clark

    I believe that, yes.
  • The problem of evil
    ↪scientia de summis


    I am not a theist, nor conventionally religious. When it comes to God, ultimately, I defer to my body and, at least, try to transcend thinking.

    But in fairness to theism, the way I see it, the God, and the categories by which the Stanford quote challenges God, are entirely our constructions. I understand why we dont, but we may as well hold that God loves the American Ideal and then ask why God allowed that ideal to fail.

    As with everything human, since the dawn of human history, we have superimposed our Narratives upon the truth. We are simply critiquing our own paper, not the subject matter it purports to treat.

    What the Stanford puzzle is criticizing is not God, but our flawed definitions; or, how anything we construct is not absolute, but rather, subject to flaws. Challenges can be said about Mathematics , for example, without rendering Mathematics itself a harmful delusion.

    You might reject the current popular Abrahamic based concept of God because that puzzle has compelled you to do so. But the puzzle does not necessarily compel you to atheism.

    "How can a theist trust in God?" is more appropriately worded "How can a theist trust that God can be or do what breaks human laws of reason and logic?"
    A theist might believe the answer is in the question. I.e., because above all else, God is not restricted by human laws of logic and reason; nor, for that matter, human morals, knowledge and potency.
  • Is all belief irrational?
    ↪Millard J Melnyk
    Thank you. Same!
  • Is all belief irrational?
    It continues as a baseless claim until someone can provide some reason to see it as something more. — Millard J Melnyk

    Yes I recognize that "we", especially philosophy as a discipline, require [a] reason(s) in order to establish a proposition as a truth.

    For phiolosophy and science, Reason (tye process/tool) provides such reason(s). Isn't reason just a cause for belief? At some point some entity must be the arbiter of when such reason(s) may safely transport the thinker to the settlement called knowledge or truth. Is Reason itself that arbiter? Does Reason function in the Universe independently of human thinkers? Etc etc. Is it a case of convention? If the elite majority agrees that there is adequate reason to settle, we all settle?

    Im not providing the proof. Perhaps I will need to master the tools, at which time I can provide the basis for convincing others. Perhaps someone who has mastered the tools might pick up on these "intuitions" and provide the basis. For now, though they are presented as propositions, they are actually questions.

    The primary point from this side of the fence remains. With respect to any question or claim, any truth accepted by any or all, has arrived at that acceptance because belief has been triggered. Whether belief was triggered by something conventionally accepted as legitimate (reason, culture, etc) or not (fantasy, blind faith), it remains belief at the beginning/end.


    By "no one born into 'history'" I mean that fictional line when Homo Sapiens presumably crossed over from sensing the world by its animal nature, to one governed/dominated/saturated by representational structures.

    Note, you are genuinely right about the baselessness of my seeming "conclusions." But this too illustrates the process of mind. A thought is presented as a candidate for acceptance, a counter thought follows, and by a trial of thoughts, a qualified adversarial process, truths are settled upon. They are never uncovered. If you and I settle this for e.g., and were certain we have uncovered a truth, in two hundred years, or tomorrow, we might become unsettled by yet another counter thought, reigniting the process.
  • Is all belief irrational?
    I wonder if we're using the same term to talk about two different things? — Millard J Melnyk

    You are correct. I'm not referring to belief in its strictly conventional use, as in one believes in x or that y will occur. It's the same word with the same definition, applying--you are right--as the first/last* epitemic mechanism. *last step of the process of manifesting knowledge/first step before knowledge manifests.

    But...

    the parallel between authority and belief isn't coincidental — Millard J Melnyk

    ...ultimately are you not also? It is the same with this immediately preceding statement with which I agree.

    Authority, clearly a construction, plays a role in that same epistemic process. Like reason, logic, desire, various emotions, authority can be the construct which contributes to or even triggers belief (again that final mechanism necessary for truth settlement).

    I guess what I'm trying to say re "ultimately are you not also [dealing with belief as the epistemic mechanism]" is that when we are inclined (as critical thinkers irrespective of the vocation) to dismiss belief in arriving at so called truths, as though belief were a choice or a cop out, we ought to recognize that even the truths we arrive at through authority or Reason etc, are finally or first triggered by belief. Even when that mechanism is undetectable (as in 1+1
    = 2).




    In the world of codependence, — Millard J Melnyk

    Yes. For sure. (And sorry for the but) But none one born into history lives outside of that world. If we believe (ha!) the claims of Zen etc that one can silence the dialectical process and allow the being (sitting in Zazen) to sense a world [truth] before/beyond the process requiring belief, it is inevitably temporary and the sitting being finds themselves returning to the codependent world and relying upon belief.
    Mind is codependency, hence you and I needing to reflect upon one another, our beliefs. We don't even really care who's ultimately so called correct. It is the codependency which is inevitable because we are humans born into a world where human history is input into our bodies like programming taking over the regulating of our experiences. And belief is an aspect of said programming
  • Transcendental Ego
    So we are always approximating something we don’t know, that is hidden from us. — Punshhh

    Yes

    by ‘transcendent ego’, you mean an equivalent to the soul? — Punshhh

    I'm taking it, that that's what those who pursue the phenomenological reduction are after--something like the soul.

    But I'm suggesting that the transcendental ego is not that "thing" like a soul. That the phenomenological reduction falls short of the mark. That thing like a soul is beyond even the transcendental ego, the latter which is just the last trace of ego beyond the Subject perceiving itself as an object perceiving, i.e. as an "ego." That the thing like a soul is entirely egoless, unconcerned with perceiver/perceived/perception. That in that respect, the thing is only the "perceiving."
  • Is all belief irrational?
    ↪Millard J Melnyk


    Or, belief may be irrational, but it is inevitable, built-in to mind's process of manifesting to the body (real consciousness) and world (nature and the species)
  • Is all belief irrational?
    There is no way that the effort to determine the truth P about the thing could alienate P. I think you're trying to say something else. — Millard J Melnyk

    Very possible. I acknowledge and apologize for my laziness and shortcomings, plus appreciate the value in presenting the thoughts logically.


    The truth doesn't need a shell to protect it, but — Millard J Melnyk

    You're right we aren't on the same page, and yet there is value. ... The shell is not to protect the truth. The shell emerged out of a biological process in a very sophisticated "engine" and consequently displaces the truth. It is neither malignant nor benign. It's what it is, human mind, displacing consciousness with representations etc. belief being a mechanism in that process. Humans want to access truth (kernel). But because this drive is displaced by a thinking, desiring mind they unavoidable take the route of knowing (the shell) truth. But because knowing is alienated from the truth (because the former is a construction/process and the latter is real) knowing can only bridge the gap by that final leap of faith: believing. No matter how simple clear and manifest the dialectic, like the one that nears its end with 1+1=2, to accept 2, is a belief. One believes in the legitimacy of the process, if you prefer.
  • Is all belief irrational?
    "Rational" and "irrational" are characterizations of constructions, not constructions themselves. — Millard J Melnyk

    And was this kind of characterization, "characterization" itself, not a construction? And if not, did it pre-exist human mind/history? Who or what put it here? Is it built into Nature? The universe? Do you see it appearing anywhere outside of mind/history? We must be careful we are referring to real and actual displays of rational/irrational and not just our constructed, super imposed characterizations.


    It could be true, it could be false, but if I've done nothing to find out which, I can't regard it as truth. — Millard J Melnyk

    The effort to find out if a thing is true or not already alienates the thing from its truth, displacing it with constructions. My statements here, no less. But its in mind's Nature to construct. It cant be helped. When the mind ceases constructing triggers out of representations, that's when the body [returns(it never left) to] Truth. It finally ceases becoming something out of empty nothing, and [just] is-ing (being). When I "regard" it as true or false, I am doing that. Looking at it through the image (code) which triggers the body's pleasant feeling which allows tge code: truth to manifest. At this moment, it is not a discovery of Truth, only a belief.


    Exactly. And the "settlement" is a settling of relationship between a reference (the idea in question) to its referent (the reality it stands as the truth about). — Millard J Melnyk

    Yes, but to be clear, there is an unbridgeable gap between the reference and the referent ( the latter, qua Real). In human mind/history, that gap is artificially bridged by the mechanism (no less a reference) "belief."

    agree that "belief" is commonly used similarly to how you use it here, but I'm convinced that it's sloppy use of the term driven by habit instead of the result of clear understanding of what the idea of "belief" entails. — Millard J Melnyk

    To be clear, I'm with our regarding the illusory effect of belief. Ultimately belief doesn't "entail" because it is a settlement, a cork put into a bottle, or a dam to stop the flow of "ideas". It's gotta end somehow (before it recycles) so reason, or upbringing, mythology, desire etc lead the dialectic to end here. "Now, because if x then y, I believe you " What? Poor us, conceited apes.

    Check out what I said about lack of belief in children in my latest response to Ludwig V at — Millard J Melnyk
    Yes, the analogy to the brain as hardware which re-wires itself, so that its programming is based not just on external input, but on internal activity. But to be clear, there rewiring is the real being adapting to the program displacing its factory setting. The factory setting is not tabula rasa. There are drives, sensations, feelings, images. But man, does the programming change things. And we think (because thinking is part of the programing, not the hardware) the real being is the programing, belief being a mechanism in the software that allows us to accept that, or any conclusion the prog4aming dreams up.

    A belief is not the kernel — Millard J Melnyk

    Yes! A belief is only reflecting what "it/its user" dreams up about the kernel. The kernel (the Real) cannot be accessed by belief; it can only be accessed by being [the kernel etc. re any object, including the Real that "I" refers to]


    To arrive at a belief about those primal senses/experiences -- "about" signals relationship between TWO things, not one, a reference and a referent -- we must do something with them — Millard J Melnyk

    Yes! Being nature access the truth, not referring to it, no matter how functional the references are. And they are. We've manifested Mozart and the Eiffel tower with our references and belief. But to access the kernel, be the kernel, or, as you suggest, crack open the shell and eat it
  • Is all belief irrational?
    Now why, if all belief is irrational, would I have a belief that knowledge/truth settlements start as belief? — Millard J Melnyk

    Knowledge and so called truth are constructions.
    rational and irrational are too.

    A so called "truth" is a settlement which mind arrives at following a dialectical process which takes place partially "unconsciously" i.e. before manifestation to aware-ing, and partially consciously, I.e. manifesting to aware-ing.

    At the latter "stage" a "truth" is settled upon when that dialectical process reaches the point where the aware-ing body is triggered to [having] a certain real and natural feeling. There, the body, feeling appropriately, triggers the mind to [temporarily--because the cycle continues] stop the dialectic and manifest the "result" as "truth". That settlement or acceptance is never absolutely conclusive but rather, it is that mechanism, triggering the end of the struggle by way of a [settled] feeling, which we think of as belief. Sometimes the feeling and corresponding settlement are vague and subtle, sometimes, for example if based on a "solid" reasoning (also constructed) or an imprinting (input in childhood) the settlement is triggered by 'strong" feelings. But they are never actually absolutely verifiable Truth/Reality. Always constructed code, out of a process in mind, triggering as a conditioned response, a certain feeling in the real body aware-ing.

    A truth for human minds is never an absolute truth, always a settlement started by (or ended by, depending upon where in time we are observing it) belief.
  • Is all belief irrational?
    Premises:
    [1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical.
    [2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks.
    [3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence.
    [4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational.

    Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.     — Millard J Melnyk

    I completely agree. That includes your belief that [admittedly hijacked and reworded liberally as] all knowledge/truth settlements start as belief. And, that includes my confidence that your belief is an expression of knowlege/truth.
  • Transcendental Ego
    The conclusion being that people cannot force enlightenment, which I agree with — Punshhh

    I agree with you, that you cannot force "enlightenment." However, I would vary from what seems to be implied in your suggestion that one must be ripe for enlightenment, or find institutions that facilitate it. These would involve the ego, an agent actively seeking/desiring enlightenment.

    My suggestion is that enlightenment is an awakening to the fictional nature of that agent. The so called transcendental ego, remains, nevertheless, the ego. Enlightenment neither involves, nor happens to that agent. The ego, mind, and human history have displace the human's natural being. Enlightenment is a shedding of that displacement. It is an emancipation from the fictional narratives restructuring reality for humans.
  • The Preacher's Paradox
    According to Kierkegaard, the only true preacher is the one who lives faith in silence. — Astorre

    This is likely the case. I am persuaded by both your arguments and SK's.

    I know you addressed love. But perhaps the "resolution" comes from seeing the preacher as willing to sacrifice his/her faith for the salvation of others.

    If we go with the concept (faith) to its ultimate conclusion, faith will transform the individual so that the individual is no longer interested in its own ego. It will liberate the individual from the bondage of individuality.

    In that state, just as there bhodisattva in Mahayana Buddhism will forsake/defer his/her Nirvana, return to the world of name and form, until all sentient beings are freed, the preacher in the Abrahamic tradition will make the movement from faith, back to the world (also of name and form), thereby "nullifying" or "contradicting" faith in favor of saving others.
  • An Introduction to Accounting for Lawyers - the ultimate byline
    ↪Ennui Elucidator


    Throw in some whereas(es) and a few "now be it, therefore(s) and it's perfect. Present it to your students in the fine print and remind them they must read the fine print.
Home » ENOAH